Common sense has that killing someone amounts to causing the death of someone. This makes killing a physical, biological, or, at best, metaphysical issue, and, as a consequence, the ethics of killing can be dealt with independently of the non-ethical issue of who the killer is. However, in this paper, we show that this is not the case. A physical/biological definition of death plus a metaphysical definition of causation does not exhaust the meaning of killing. Rather, the notion of killing per se generally presumes a notion of default, which often involves ethical considerations
The purpose of this paper is to examine the taking of human life in the name of preserving another. ...
The purpose of this paper was to prove that there was no moral difference between killing and lettin...
The object of this essay is to explain why the distinctions made in euthanasia between killing vs. l...
Common sense has that killing someone amounts to causing the death of someone. This makes killing a ...
Introduction This paper defends the moral significance of the distinction between killing and let...
In ‘What Makes Killing Wrong?’ Sinnott-Armstrong and Miller make the bold claim that killi...
James Rachels’s distinction between killing and letting die maintains that there is morally no diffe...
types: ArticleThis is the author's final version of an articles submitted to Hart. The definitive ve...
In contemplating any life and death moral dilemma, one is often struck by the possible importance of...
Why do we consider killing and letting someone die to be two different things? Why do we believe tha...
1. Good and evil are not entities, but parameters. The only moral fact is death, and moral...
<p>The purpose of this review is to prove that there is no moral difference between killing and lett...
On this issue intuitions seem to lead in opposite directions. On the one hand, we confront examples ...
There are well established criteria for what constitutes a homicide and under what conditions it is ...
Nowadays the bioethical debate on end-of-life issues seems to still be characterized by some problem...
The purpose of this paper is to examine the taking of human life in the name of preserving another. ...
The purpose of this paper was to prove that there was no moral difference between killing and lettin...
The object of this essay is to explain why the distinctions made in euthanasia between killing vs. l...
Common sense has that killing someone amounts to causing the death of someone. This makes killing a ...
Introduction This paper defends the moral significance of the distinction between killing and let...
In ‘What Makes Killing Wrong?’ Sinnott-Armstrong and Miller make the bold claim that killi...
James Rachels’s distinction between killing and letting die maintains that there is morally no diffe...
types: ArticleThis is the author's final version of an articles submitted to Hart. The definitive ve...
In contemplating any life and death moral dilemma, one is often struck by the possible importance of...
Why do we consider killing and letting someone die to be two different things? Why do we believe tha...
1. Good and evil are not entities, but parameters. The only moral fact is death, and moral...
<p>The purpose of this review is to prove that there is no moral difference between killing and lett...
On this issue intuitions seem to lead in opposite directions. On the one hand, we confront examples ...
There are well established criteria for what constitutes a homicide and under what conditions it is ...
Nowadays the bioethical debate on end-of-life issues seems to still be characterized by some problem...
The purpose of this paper is to examine the taking of human life in the name of preserving another. ...
The purpose of this paper was to prove that there was no moral difference between killing and lettin...
The object of this essay is to explain why the distinctions made in euthanasia between killing vs. l...