Graduate studies at Western
Philosophia 39 (1):105-110 (2011)
|Abstract||Gilmore proposes a new definition of ‘dead’ in response to Fred Feldman’s earlier definition in terms of ‘lives’ and ‘dies.’ In this paper, I critically examine Gilmore’s new definition. First, I explain what his definition is and how it is an improvement upon Feldman’s definition. Second, I raise an objection to it by noting that it fails to rule out the possibility of a thing that dies without becoming dead|
|Keywords||Dead Dies Lives Abiotic In stasis Definition Gilmore Feldman|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Richard Robinson (1950). Definition. Clarendon Press.
Robert M. Veatch (2004). Abandon the Dead Donor Rule or Change the Definition of Death? Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14 (3):261-276.
Phillip E. Devine (1986). On the Definition of “Religion”. Faith and Philosophy 3 (3):270-284.
Jeffrey Gold (1984). Socratic Definition. Philosophy Research Archives 10:573-588.
Patrick Toner (2010). On Substance. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 84 (1):25-48.
Robert M. Veatch (2003). The Dead Donor Rule: True by Definition. American Journal of Bioethics 3 (1):10 – 11.
Megan Crowley-Matoka & Robert M. Arnold (2004). The Dead Donor Rule: How Much Does the Public Care ... And How Much Should. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14 (3):319-332.
Cody Gilmore (2007). Defining 'Dead' in Terms of 'Lives' and 'Dies'. Philosophia 35 (2):219-231.
Added to index2010-08-02
Total downloads22 ( #62,772 of 739,375 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,680 of 739,375 )
How can I increase my downloads?