Summarize: By contrast a man is said not strictly, or directly, to intend the foreseen consequences of his voluntary actions where these are neither the end at which he is aiming nor the means to this end. Whether the word $\mathrm{â??}$intention$\mathrm{â?}$ should be applied in both cases is not of course what matters: Bentham spoke of $\mathrm{â??}$oblique intention,$\mathrm{â?}$ contrasting it with the $\mathrm{â??}$direct intention$\mathrm{â?}$ of ends and means, and we may as well follow his terminology. Everyone must recognize that some such distinction can be made, though it may be made in a number of different ways, and it is the distinction that is crucial to the doctrine of the double effect.