This category needs an editor. We encourage you to help if you are qualified.
Volunteer, or read more about what this involves.
Related categories
Siblings:
15 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Sort by:
  1. Tom Beauchamp, The Principle of Beneficence in Applied Ethics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Stephen M. Campbell (2013). An Analysis of Prudential Value. Utilitas 25 (03):334-54.
    This essay introduces and defends a new analysis of prudential value. According to this analysis, what it is for something to be good for you is for that thing to contribute to the appeal or desirability of being in your position. I argue that this proposal fits well with our ways of talking about prudential value and well-being; enables promising analyses of the related concepts of luck, selfishness, self-sacrifice, and paternalism; preserves the relationship between prudential value and the attitudes of (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Jakob Elster (2011). Procreative Beneficence – Cui Bono? Bioethics 25 (9):482-488.
    Recently, Julian Savulescu and Guy Kahane have defended the Principle of Procreative Beneficence (PB), according to which prospective parents ought to select children with the view that their future child has ‘the best chance of the best life’. I argue that the arguments Savulescu and Kahane adduce in favour of PB equally well support what I call the Principle of General Procreative Beneficence (GPB). GPB states that couples ought to select children in view of maximizing the overall expected value in (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Danny Frederick (2011). Confusion About the Right to Life. The Reasoner 5 (1):4-5.
    I defend the consistency of affirming the right to life while rejecting universal healthcare and liveable income programmes. I also defend the rationality of accepting inconsistency.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Scott A. Freeman (2002). Objectivity Versus Beneficence in a Death Row Evaluation. Ethics and Behavior 12 (3):295 – 298.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Joseph S. Fulda (1999). In Defense of Charity and Philanthropy. Business and Society Review 104 (2):179-189.
    The article distinguishes between charity and philanthropy and answers those who argue that monies spent for either are an inefficient deployment of monies for present consumption that could better be deployed by investing in the production of future wealth. It closes by arguing that philanthropists provide a key leadership role in the free-market economy. -/- The author owns the copyright, and there was no agreement, express or implied, not to use the publisher's PDF.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Nora Jacobson & Diego Silva (2010). Dignity Promotion and Beneficence. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 7 (4):365-372.
    The concept of dignity has occasioned a robust conversation in recent healthcare scholarship. When viewed as a whole, research on dignity in healthcare has engaged each of the four bioethical principles popularized by Beauchamp and Childress, but has paid the least attention to beneficence. In this paper, we look at dignity and beneficence. We focus on the dignity promotion component of a model of dignity derived from a grounded theory study. After describing the study and presenting a précis of the (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Scott M. James (2007). Good Samaritans, Good Humanitarians. Journal of Applied Philosophy 24 (3):238–254.
    Duties of beneficence are not well understood. Peter Singer has argued that the scope of beneficence should not be restricted to those who are, in some sense, near us. According to Singer, refusing to contribute to humanitarian relief efforts is just as wrong as refusing to rescue a child drowning before you. Most people do not seem convinced by Singer’s arguments, yet no one has offered a plausible justification for restricting the scope of beneficence that doesn’t produce counterintuitive results elsewhere. (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Thaddeus Metz (2010). For the Sake of the Friendship: Relationality and Relationship as Grounds of Beneficence. Theoria 57 (4):54-76.
    I contend that there are important moral reasons for individuals, organisations and states to aid others that have gone largely unrecognised in the literature. Most of the acknowledged reasons for acting beneficently in the absence of a promise to do so are either impartial and intrinsic, on the one hand, being grounded in properties internal to and universal among individuals, such as their pleasure or autonomy, or partial and extrinsic, on the other, being grounded in non-universal properties regarding an actual (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Thaddeus Metz (2001). Review of Liam Murphy, Moral Demands in Nonideal Theory. [REVIEW] Philosophical Review 110 (4):614-617.
  11. Richard W. Miller (2004). Beneficence, Duty and Distance. Philosophy and Public Affairs 32 (4):357–383.
    According to Peter Singer, virtually all of us would be forced by adequate reflection on our own convictions to embrace a radical conclusion about giving. The following principle, he says, is “surely undeniable” -- at least once we reflect on secure convictions concerning rescue, as in his famous case of the drowning toddler.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Liam B. Murphy (1997). A Relatively Plausible Principle of Beneficence: Reply to Mulgan. Philosophy and Public Affairs 26 (1):80–86.
  13. Liam B. Murphy (1993). The Demands of Beneficence. Philosophy and Public Affairs 22 (4):267-292.
    Principles of bcnciiccnce require us to promote the good. If we believe that a plausible mom] conception will contain some such principle, we must address the issue of the demands it imposes on agents. Some writers have defended extremely demanding principles, while others have argued that only principles with limited demands are acceptable. In this paper I su ggest that we 100k at the demands 0f beneficencc in a different way; 0ur concern should not just be with the extent of (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Joakim Sandberg (2011). Charity is Obligatory. In Michael Bruce & Steven Barbone (eds.), Just the Arguments: 100 of the Most Important Arguments in Western Philosophy. Wiley-Blackwell.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Rory B. Weiner (1994). Cooperative Beneficence and Professional Obligations. Professional Ethics 3 (3/4):83-115.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation