By Jonathan Glover
Read Online or Download Causing Death and Saving Lives PDF
Best ethics & morality books
What will we do to dwell lifestyles properly? you could imagine that the reply will be to imagine and replicate extra. yet this isn't Valerie Tiberius's solution. On her view, after we particularly take account of what we're like - once we realize our mental limits - we'll see that an excessive amount of considering and reflecting is undesirable for us.
In Reason's Grief, George Harris takes W. B. Yeats's remark that we commence to dwell merely after we have conceived lifestyles as tragedy as a choice for a sad ethics, anything the fashionable West has but to supply. He argues that we needs to shrink back from spiritual understandings of tragedy and the human situation and detect that our species will occupy a truly short interval of heritage, sooner or later to vanish with out a hint.
This booklet examines the various inner most questions in philosophy: what's all for judging a trust, motion, or feeling to be rational? What position does morality have within the type of existence it makes such a lot feel to guide? How are to appreciate claims to objectivity in ethical judgments and in judgments of rationality?
So long as we care approximately discomfort on the planet, says political thinker Simona Forti, we're forced to inquire into the query of evil. yet is the idea that of evil nonetheless invaluable in a postmodern panorama the place absolute values were leveled and relativized through a historicist viewpoint? Given our present unwillingness to pass judgement on others, what signposts stay to steer our moral habit?
- Correlations in Rosenzweig and Levinas
- A life-centered approach to bioethics : biocentric ethics
- The Invention of Free Press: Writers and Censorship in Eighteenth Century Europe
Additional info for Causing Death and Saving Lives
Few people would dismiss the utilitarian objections as unimportant. It is hard to dispute the undesirability of prematurely ending the life of a happy person, or to quarrel with the importance the utilitarian attaches to grief and other harmful side-effects. In this context, doubts about utilitarianism are not about the validity of the reasons given against killing, but rather about whether they are the whole story. The first doubt concerns the extent to which the utilitarian view makes people replaceable.
If our only objection to killing were based on the autonomy principle, there would be no objection to killing the whole community. This seems quite unacceptable. The deficiencies of making the wrongness of killing depend only on the autonomy principle can also be seen in a case that is not at all imaginary. If someone wants to kill himself, we often think it right to prevent him, on the grounds that he does have a worth-while life and that he will later be glad of our paternalist intervention. But if the only principle applying to matters of life and death were the autonomy principle, we would often find ourselves debarred from intervening.
How can it be right that I should be forced to stay alive at great cost in pain to myself, but not be right for me to take heroin if I want, at the same cost to myself? There are three main arguments for paternalistic prevention of heroin addiction: 1. (i) The suffering is very great: we can be very confident that the normal person is better off than the addict. 2. (ii) There is very little uncertainty that the suffering will occur. 3. (iii) The process is not readily reversible, so the person starting on heroin greatly restricts his future freedom of choice.