People who hold to moral absolutes in ethical dilemmas appear to be more trusted than those who engage in a cost/benefit analysis.
Recently we interviewed Professor Daniel N. Robinson about his views on the foundations of bioethics.
Steven Pinker delivers a stiff uppercut to the whole field.
“Doing the Most Good” is an apology for “effective altruism”.
Was he the world's most famous spokesman for the creed of Jeremy Bentham?
Julian Savulescu's sombre lament for the field he loves.
Nothing has done more to tarnish the prestige of utilitarianism in recent years than academic interest in trolley-ology.
Many sci-fi novels consider what life would be like without suffering. Philosopher David Pearce believes we can have such a life - and indeed, that we have a moral imperative to pursue it.
Two utilitarians slug it out over enhancing morality.
The interesting question posed by two Oxford utilitarians, Dominic Wilkinson and Julian Savulescu in the Journal of Medical Ethics recently is this: “Is it better to be minimally conscious than vegetative?”
Yet another controversial utilitarian proposal has popped up in the March issue of the American Journal of Bioethics. Two bioethicists contend that some parents are morally obligated to use pre-implantation genetic diagnosis to create a healthy baby.
The fallout from the “after-birth abortion” article in the Journal of Medical Ethics continues.
Modest proposals, in sense given the phrase by the great 18th century satirist Jonathan Swift, are flavour of the month in the bioethics community.
If abortion, why not infanticide? This leading question is often treated as a canard by supporters of abortion. However, it is seriously argued by two Italian utilitarians and published online in the prestigious Journal of Medical Ethics this week.
The editor of the leading journal Bioethics, Udo Schulenk regards capital punishment as a “barbaric practice”, it seems a shame to waste potentially life-saving organs of executed Chinese prisoners. It is a classic example of utilitarian reasoning.
Somewhat surprisingly, on utilitarian grounds Peter Singer defends the possibility of imposing the death penalty. At this moment, there exists no situation in which it is needed, even for those convicted of genocide. Theoretically, however, there is nothing wrong with it:
If you are a fan of Philosophy Bites, the addictive podcast site featuring intelligent 15-minute interviews with professional philosophers about their work, you should like Bio-Ethics Bites. This features leading bioethicists speaking with Nigel Warburton & David Edmonds team.
American woman exports her scheme
They cause too much suffering
Page 1 of 2 : 1 2 >