Abstract
In this essay I first provide a brief explanation of the principle of double effect (PDE) and the propositions that it entails regarding the distinction between intention and foresight (I/F distinction) and the distinction's relevance to ethical evaluation. Then I address several recent critiques of PDE and the IN distinction by influential ethicists including Judith Jarvis Thomson, Tom Beauchamp and James Childress, and Jonathan Bennett. I argue that none of these critiques is successful. In the process of refuting the critiques, I also give prima facie reason to believe that the IN distinction is relevant to evaluation of agents and their actions and that PDE is a defensible ethical principle.