Does the ‘counterfactual test’ work for distinguishing a means from a foreseen concomitant

An important question in moral philosophy is whether it is morally legitimate to extend moral prohibitions to the foreseen concomitants of one's act or solely to the intended results. Prior to answering this question it is necessary to discuss whether it is pos,;ible to distinguish the foreseen concomitants of an act from the intended results. In this paper I examine one traditional but (as I shall argue) inadequate criterion for making the distinction in question. The 'counterfactual test' has traditionally been proposed for distinguishing an intended means from an unintended but foreseen concomitant of an act. This test is as follows: