Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Violent Deaths, Vicious Preferences, and Bare-Differences: A Reply to Hill.Zak A. Kopeikin - 2021 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 99 (1):196-201.
    ABSTRACT Hill [AJP, 2018] argues that Rachels’s famous bare-difference argument for the moral irrelevance between killing and letting die fails. In this paper, I argue that certain features in Hill’s cases might lead our intuitions astray. I propose new cases and suggest that they support the conclusion that, in itself, intentional killing is morally equivalent to intentional letting-die.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • 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.
    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