Exceptions?

For the most part I agree with Scanlon.  Intention doesn't affect the permissability of an action as it's importance is to predicting outcomes and judging the agent of the action.  That being said I still think Scanlon fails to prove this,  He gives examples relevant to the exceptions to the rules in place but rather than showing why something isn't an exception he simply claims it would be absurd for it to be so.

The closest he comes to explaining why something isn't an exception is in the tactical strike vs terrorist strike example where he gives the list of exceptions that allow deadly force for war purposes and then points out that the terrorist acts to lower enemy moral don't fall into the category of gaining a military advantage.  I agree that terrorist strikes are wrong but I would certain;y argue that lowering enemy moral is a military advantage.

Scanlon more or less dodges the bullet in this case because he says he doesn't necessarily agree with these rules as he laid them out but in all his other examples he simply says that such and such outcome does not constitute an exception to the rules even though he never explains what constitutes an exception and why this isn't it.  He simply says it would be absurd for it to be an exception,