Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Philosophising outside of the academy

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

  • i NIH Curriculum Supplement Series – Exploring Bioethics: Grades 9–122 was developed in part by philosophers.

  • ii Kamm herself notes that the goal of promoting the best consequences can override the norms constitutive of being a scientist (p. 528).

  • iii For example, the commissioner might be against euthanasia if it involves killing, but be permissive if it involves merely letting someone die. If a philosopher were to claim that there is no morally relevant difference between killing and letting die, as support for permitting some acts of euthanasia that are killings, the commissioner might conclude instead that no cases of euthanasia are permissible (p. 528; see also pp. 529 and 532–533 for other examples).

  • iv Perhaps this idea is what Kamm is getting at in note 11, p. 546.

Linked Articles

  • Author meets critics: precis
    Frances Kamm
  • Author meets critics: response
    T M Scanlon
  • Author meets critics: response
    Alex Voorhoeve
  • Author meets critics: response
    Frances M Kamm

Other content recommended for you