Doing research on the impact of traumatic experiences can be both heartening and heart-rending. People and situations are encountered that would touch the hardest of hearts, and others are met who inspire with their tenacity and strength to go on. Psychological trauma and adaptation to traumatic events is without question a truly fascinating and important field. You don’t have to look hard to find stories of stress and trauma. Crisis and catastrophe happen with remarkable regularity. Yet the attributes that help or hinder people when they meet misfortune are not well understood. In this chapter contemporary models and definitions of trauma are reviewed. And research that shows us that traumatic experiences are shaped by social and political factors is briefly considered to highlight the relevance of social sciences and social psychology, specifically to the study of trauma, as they offer a set of analytical tools. This allows us to unravel the social and political processes that matter to how people cope with adversity, which leads to a conclusion that emphasises that a social psychological perspective on trauma is useful and necessary.

Chapter 3 develops a theoretical grounding for the PDE, the solidarity rationale. Taking a cue from Philippa Foot, I situate the PDE within a larger region of morality, one structured around the concept of solidarity. I propose that our conduct is measured by a standard of human solidarity toward each other person, that is, a standard of concern and goodwill that is based on our common humanity, and that a person’s conduct is wrong when it deviates from this standard. I argue that the solidarity standard grounds more specific moral norms, including the precept of beneficence, the strict constraint against intentional harm, and the Principles of Proportionality and Due Care. Finally, I argue that the normative foundation for the solidarity standard is the dignity of human beings.

An agent who acts intentionally typically foresees that she will bring about a number of effects and that her conduct will fall under a variety of different descriptions. Which of these effects and descriptions are intentional and which are incidental? To answer this question, Chapter 4 presents an Anscombian account of intentional action. I first show how Anscombe uses a special sense of the question “Why?” to elucidate the teleological order characteristic of intentional action. I then explain how the teleological order of an agent’s intentional action is determined by the calculation on the basis of which she acts, where the concept of calculation is illuminated by the notion of practical reasoning. Next, I explain how Anscombe’s account of intention and intentional action differs from a false conception she calls “Cartesian psychology.” Finally, I apply the Anscombian account to three controversial cases.

According to the PDE, there is a strict moral constraint against bringing about serious evil (harm) to an innocent person intentionally, but it is permissible in a wider range of circumstances to act in a way that brings about serious evil incidentally, as a foreseen but nonintended side effect. In Chapter 1, I discuss the key terms in this definition and I distinguish between an absolutist version of the PDE and a nonabsolutist one. I then introduce two principles that help guide agents when they foresee their conduct will cause incidental harm: the Principle of Proportionality and the Principle of Due Care. Finally, I describe the role of the PDE in just war theory and international humanitarian law, and I set out the plan for the remainder of the book.