Article Text
Current controversy
Dependent relational animals
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
-
Competing interests None.
-
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
↵[i] I will follow Sinnott-Armstrong and Miller is assuming that the wrongness of killing can be explained based on its consequences and that what makes killing wrong is just what is bad about death.
↵[ii] This presumes nothing of Julie's feelings about her husband or her cat.
↵[iii] Allow that the fetus has no interests of its own and, having never been conscious, has formed no relationships.
Linked Articles
- Commentaries
- Commentaries
- Commentaries
- Commentaries
- Feature article
- The concise argument
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- A concise argument: on the wrongness of killing
- What makes killing wrong?
- ‘Total disability’ and the wrongness of killing
- Killing and disabling: a comment on Sinnott-Armstrong and Miller
- Killing versus totally disabling: a reply to critics
- Abortion and human nature
- Strong's objections to the future of value account
- A critique of “the best secular argument against abortion”
- Infanticide and moral consistency
- Why I wrote my advance decision to refuse life-prolonging treatment: and why the law on sanctity of life remains problematic