Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Fifty years of killing and letting die: On the limits of philosophical bioethics.Joona Räsänen & Matti Häyry - forthcoming - Bioethics.
    In 1975, The New England Journal of Medicine published James Rachels' article 'Active and Passive Euthanasia'. The argumentative method that Rachels introduced, the Bare Difference Argument (also known as the Contrast Strategy), became one of the most widely used tools in ethical reasoning. The argument, however, fails to show active euthanasia being morally permissible. It fails because Rachels takes the intuitions from the case where letting die is morally impermissible and applies the intuitions to cases where letting die is morally (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Animal Rights Pacifism.Blake Hereth - 2021 - Philosophical Studies 178 (12):4053-4082.
    The Animal Rights Thesis (ART) entails that nonhuman animals like pigs and cows have moral rights, including rights not to be unjustly harmed. If ART is true, it appears to imply the permissibility of killing ranchers, farmers, and zookeepers in defense of animals who will otherwise be unjustly killed. This is the Militancy Objection (MO) to ART. I consider four replies to MO and reject three of them. First, MO fails because animals lack rights, or lack rights of sufficient strength (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Bare-Difference Methodology and a Problematic Separability Principle.Zak A. Kopeikin - 2020 - Journal of Value Inquiry 54 (4):553-570.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Bare‐difference methodology and the scientific analogy.Zak A. Kopeikin - 2021 - Ratio 34 (3):171-182.
    The bare‐difference methodology is considered to be a powerful tool in ethical reasoning. The underlying idea is that we can identify the intrinsic evaluative significance of some feature by constructing contrast cases or bare‐difference cases, i.e., two cases that hold everything constant but for the feature of interest. While this popular methodology has been challenged by prominent philosophers such as Kagan, Thomson, and Kamm, it is intuitively appealing because, as Perrett identifies, the methodology appears to share the same logical structure (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Error Theories and Bare-Difference Methodology: A Reply to Kopeikin.Scott Hill - 2023 - Journal of Value Inquiry 57 (4):641-650.
    Kopeikin (forthcoming a, forthcoming b) and Rachels’ (1975) bare-difference cases elicit the intuition that killing is no different than letting die. Hill’s (2018) bare-difference cases elicit the intuition that killing is worse than letting die. At least one of the intuitions must be mistaken. This calls for an error theory. Hill has an error theory for the intuition elicited by the Kopeikin/Rachels’ cases. Kopeikin and Rachels have an error theory for the intuition elicited by Hill’s cases. A natural thought is (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark