ABSTRACTThis paper restates some of the principal arguments against an automatic preference for the young as advocated by Kappel and Sandøe, arguments many of which have been extant for over a decade but which Kappel and Sandøe largely ignore. It then goes on to demonstrate that Kappel and Sandøe's “indifference test” fails to do the work required of it because it can be met by unacceptable conceptions of justice. The paper develops a number of new arguments against what I have (...) called “ageist” preferences for the young or for those with long life expectancy. Finally I show that Kappel and Sandøe must believe that murdering older people is less morally wrong than murdering the young and that people relying on arguments such as theirs will have to accept the moral respectability of killing the innocent in order to maximise units of lifetime. (shrink)

With a new introduction by Michael Ruse, this book will reintroduce Bertrand Russell's writings to readers and students of philosophy and religion. Russell provides an insightful study of the historical conflicts between science and traditional religion until the beginning of the Second World War. In a wide range of topics, including evolution, demonology and medicine, sould and body, determinism, mysticism, and science and ethics, Russell provides historic events in which scientific breakthroughs clashed with Christian doctrine. Through these examples, we find (...) in history a constant upheaval and re-evaluation of our systems of belief, and identify where similar debates between modern science and the Church still exist today. (shrink)

Chronic organ diseases and the increasing demand for organ transplantation have become an important health care problem within the last few decades. Campaigns and regulations to encourage people to donate organs after their death have not met much success. This article discusses the subject from an Islamic perspective. It begins with some basic information on how Muslims reach legal rulings on a particular issue, and goes on to debate contemporary thinking among Islamic scholars on the ethical‐legal issues of organ donation (...) and organ transplantation.It is shown that there are two groups of scholars, one allowing organ donation and organ transplantation, the other refusing it in any circumstances. Both groups agree that it is fundamentally wrong to harvest organs from cadavers without the prior permission of the deceased or the relatives. This dogma is re‐examined, and it is argued that, under the rule of necessity and the imperative to preserve life, there is enough moral and theological ground to allow the state to harvest organs from the deceased without prior permission. (shrink)