协助自杀的五个简单论点和Velleman和Gorsuch的反对

F. Kamm
{"title":"协助自杀的五个简单论点和Velleman和Gorsuch的反对","authors":"F. Kamm","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190097158.003.0007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter presents five arguments in favor of the moral permissibility of, and even a duty to engage in, physician-assisted suicide both to end suffering and for other reasons in those who are and are not terminally ill. It considers objections to these sorts of arguments presented by David Velleman from a Kantian perspective and by Neil Gorsuch (now associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court) who argues against intentionally causing death. The chapter considers how to identify intention, the significance of it for moral and legal permissibility, and the role of the Doctrine of Double Effect in arguments about assisted suicide. It also deals with the difference between assisted suicide for the good of some enabling versus causing harm to others.","PeriodicalId":387879,"journal":{"name":"Almost Over","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Five Easy Arguments for Assisted Suicide and the Objections of Velleman and Gorsuch\",\"authors\":\"F. Kamm\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780190097158.003.0007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter presents five arguments in favor of the moral permissibility of, and even a duty to engage in, physician-assisted suicide both to end suffering and for other reasons in those who are and are not terminally ill. It considers objections to these sorts of arguments presented by David Velleman from a Kantian perspective and by Neil Gorsuch (now associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court) who argues against intentionally causing death. The chapter considers how to identify intention, the significance of it for moral and legal permissibility, and the role of the Doctrine of Double Effect in arguments about assisted suicide. It also deals with the difference between assisted suicide for the good of some enabling versus causing harm to others.\",\"PeriodicalId\":387879,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Almost Over\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Almost Over\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190097158.003.0007\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Almost Over","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190097158.003.0007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

这一章提出了五个论点,支持道德上的允许,甚至是参与的责任,医生协助自杀既可以结束痛苦,也可以为那些身患绝症或非身患绝症的人提供其他原因。它考虑了对大卫·维勒曼(David Velleman)和尼尔·戈萨奇(Neil Gorsuch,现为美国最高法院大法官)提出的反对故意致人死亡的观点的异议。本章探讨了如何识别意图,其对道德和法律允许的意义,以及双重效应学说在关于协助自杀的争论中的作用。它还讨论了协助自杀对某些人有益和对其他人造成伤害之间的区别。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Five Easy Arguments for Assisted Suicide and the Objections of Velleman and Gorsuch
This chapter presents five arguments in favor of the moral permissibility of, and even a duty to engage in, physician-assisted suicide both to end suffering and for other reasons in those who are and are not terminally ill. It considers objections to these sorts of arguments presented by David Velleman from a Kantian perspective and by Neil Gorsuch (now associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court) who argues against intentionally causing death. The chapter considers how to identify intention, the significance of it for moral and legal permissibility, and the role of the Doctrine of Double Effect in arguments about assisted suicide. It also deals with the difference between assisted suicide for the good of some enabling versus causing harm to others.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信