Article Text
PDFCommentaries
On the wrongness of killing
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
iSee also Olson ET. The Human Animal: Personal Identity without Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
iiMy view is complicated by its incorporation of the ‘time-relative interests account’ of the harm of death, which applies to sentient nonpersons—and possibly potentially sentient beings (see, e.g., DeGrazia D. The harm of death, time-relative interests, and abortion. Philos Forum 2007;38:57–80.).
Competing interests None.
Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Linked Articles
- Commentaries
- Feature article
- Commentaries
- Current controversy
- Commentaries
- The concise argument
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- What makes killing wrong?
- Abandoning the Dead Donor Rule
- A concise argument: on the wrongness of killing
- Deprivations, futures and the wrongness of killing
- Organismal death, the dead-donor rule and the ethics of vital organ procurement
- A critique of “the best secular argument against abortion”
- Killing versus totally disabling: a reply to critics
- Is heart transplantation after circulatory death compatible with the dead donor rule?
- Reply to Marquis: how things stand with the ‘future like ours’ argument
- Genetic enhancement, post-persons and moral status: a reply to Buchanan