Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Liberal utilitarianism – yes, but for whom?Joona Räsänen - 2021 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 30 (2):368-375.
    The aim of this commentary is to critically examine Matti Häyry’s article ‘Just Better Utilitarianism’, where he argues that liberal utilitarianism can offer a basis for moral and political choices in bioethics and thus could be helpful in decision-making. This commentary, while generally sympathetic to Häyry’s perspective, argues that Häyry should expand on who belongs to our moral community because, to solve practical ethical issues, we need to determine who (and what) deserves our moral consideration. Challenging Häyry’s principle of actual (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Roe v. Wade and the Predatory State Interest in Protecting Future Cannon Fodder.Matti Häyry - 2023 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 32 (3):434-442.
    The reversal of Roe v. Wade by the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the states to regulate terminations of pregnancy more autonomously than during 1973–2022. Those who think that women should be legally entitled to abortions at their own request are suggesting that annulling the reversal could be an option. This would mean continued reliance on the interpretation of privacy that Roe v. Wade stood on. The interpretation does not have the moral support that its supporters think. This can be shown (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • What Exactly Did You Claim?Matti Häyry - 2015 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 24 (1):107-112.
  • Just Better Utilitarianism.Matti Häyry - 2021 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 30 (2):343-367.
    Utilitarianism could still be a viable moral and political theory, although an emphasis on justice as distributing burdens and benefits has hidden this from current conversations. The traditional counterexamples prove that we have good grounds for rejecting classical, aggregative forms of consequentialism. A nonaggregative, liberal form of utilitarianism is immune to this rejection. The cost is that it cannot adjudicate when the basic needs of individuals or groups are in conflict. Cases like this must be solved by other methods. This (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • Discoursive Humanity as a Transcendental Basis for Cognitive Ability Ethics and Policies.Matti Häyry - 2016 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 25 (2):262-271.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Causation, Responsibility, and Harm: How the Discursive Shift from Law and Ethics to Social Justice Sealed the Plight of Nonhuman Animals.Matti Häyry - 2020 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 29 (2):246-267.
    Moral and political philosophers no longer condemn harm inflicted on nonhuman animals as self-evidently as they did when animal welfare and animal rights advocacy was at the forefront in the 1980s, and sentience, suffering, species-typical behavior, and personhood were the basic concepts of the discussion. The article shows this by comparing the determination with which societies seek responsibility for human harm to the relative indifference with which law and morality react to nonhuman harm. When harm is inflicted on humans, policies (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations