Philosophy and Public Affairs 7 (4):285-301 (1978)
|Abstract||Suppose that we can help either one person or many others. Is it a reason t0 help the many that We should thus be helping more people? John Taurek thinks not. We may learn from his arguments.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
David W. Shoemaker (2002). Disintegrated Persons and Distributive Principles. Ratio 15 (1):58–79.
Derek Parfit (1986). Comments. Ethics 96 (4):832-872.
Rachana Kamtekar (2004). Situationism and Virtue Ethics on the Content of Our Character. Ethics 114 (3):458-491.
Stuart Rachels (2004). Repugnance or Intransitivity: A Repugnant But Forced Choice. In Jesper Ryberg Torbjorn Tannsjo (ed.), The Repugnant Conclusion: Essays on Population Ethics. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Derek A. Parfit (1984). Reasons and Persons. Oxford University Press.
Ronald M. Green (2011). Should We Retire Derek Parfit? Hastings Center Report 41 (1).
Ferdinand Santos (2007). Personal Identity, the Self, and Ethics. Palgrave Macmillan.
Tyler Doggett (2009). What Is Wrong With Kamm's and Scanlon's Arguments Against Taurek. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 3 (3).
Jussi Suikkanen & John Cottingham (eds.) (2009). Essays on Derek Parfit's on What Matters. Wiley-Blackwell.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads130 ( #3,529 of 548,984 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #15,093 of 548,984 )
How can I increase my downloads?