Search results for 'Beneficence' (try it on Scholar)

540 found
Order:
  1. Pablo Gilabert (2016). Justice and Beneficence. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 19 (5):508-533.
    What is a duty of justice? And how is it different from a duty of beneficence? We need a clear account of the contrast. Unfortunately, there is no consensus in the philosophical literature as to how to characterize it. Different articulations of it have been provided, but it is hard to identify a common core that is invariant across them. In this paper, I propose an account of how to understand duties of justice, explain how it contrasts with several (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2. S. Andrew Schroeder (2014). Imperfect Duties, Group Obligations, and Beneficence. Journal of Moral Philosophy 11 (5):557-584.
    There is virtually no philosophical consensus on what, exactly, imperfect duties are. In this paper, I lay out three criteria which I argue any adequate account of imperfect duties should satisfy. Using beneficence as a leading example, I suggest that existing accounts of imperfect duties will have trouble meeting those criteria. I then propose a new approach: thinking of imperfect duties as duties held by groups, rather than individuals. I show, again using the example of beneficence, that this (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3. J. Paul Kelleher (2014). Beneficence, Justice, and Health Care. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 24 (1):27-49.
    This paper argues that societal duties of health promotion are underwritten (at least in large part) by a principle of beneficence. Further, this principle generates duties of justice that correlate with rights, not merely “imperfect” duties of charity or generosity. To support this argument, I draw on a useful distinction from bioethics and on a somewhat neglected approach to social obligation from political philosophy. The distinction is that between general and specific beneficence; and the approach from political philosophy (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4. Rebecca Bennett (2009). The Fallacy of the Principle of Procreative Beneficence. Bioethics 23 (5):265-273.
    The claim that we have a moral obligation, where a choice can be made, to bring to birth the 'best' child possible, has been highly controversial for a number of decades. More recently Savulescu has labelled this claim the Principle of Procreative Beneficence. It has been argued that this Principle is problematic in both its reasoning and its implications, most notably in that it places lower moral value on the disabled. Relentless criticism of this proposed moral obligation, however, has (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   8 citations  
  5.  7
    Alan Holland (2016). The Case Against the Case for Procreative Beneficence. Bioethics 30 (6).
    Julian Savulescu's principle of procreative beneficence states that, other things being equal, and of the possible children they could have, a couple contemplating procreation are morally obliged to procreate the child with the best chance of the best life. The critique of PB is in three parts. The first part argues that PB rests on a particular conception of the good life, and that alternative conceptions of the good life afford no obvious way in which PB can be rendered (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6.  66
    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 (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  7.  31
    Rebecca Bennett (2014). When Intuition is Not Enough. Why the Principle of Procreative Beneficence Must Work Much Harder to Justify Its Eugenic Vision. Bioethics 28 (9):447-455.
    The Principle of Procreative Beneficence claims that we have a moral obligation, where choice is possible, to choose to create the best child we can. The existence of this moral obligation has been proposed by John Harris and Julian Savulescu and has proved controversial on many levels, not least that it is eugenics, asking us to produce the best children we can, not for the sake of that child's welfare, but in order to make a better society. These are (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  8.  9
    L. Horn (2015). Public Health, Beneficence and Cosmopolitan Justice. South African Journal of Bioethics and Law 8 (2):30.
    This article proposes that, in line with moral-cosmopolitan theorists, affluent nations have an obligation, founded in justice and not merely altruism or beneficence, to share the responsibility of the burden of public health implementation in low-income contexts. The current Ebola epidemic highlights the fact that countries with under-developed health systems and limited resources cannot cope with a significant and sudden health threat. The link between burden of disease, adverse factors in the social environment and poverty is well established and (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  9.  37
    Andrew Hotke (2014). The Principle of Procreative Beneficence: Old Arguments and A New Challenge. Bioethics 28 (5):255-262.
    In the last ten years, there have been a number of attempts to refute Julian Savulescu's Principle of Procreative Beneficence; a principle which claims that parents have a moral obligation to have the best child that they can possibly have. So far, no arguments against this principle have succeeded at refuting it. This paper tries to explain the shortcomings of some of the more notable arguments against this principle. I attempt to break down the argument for the principle and (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  10.  74
    Karen Stohr (2011). Kantian Beneficence and the Problem of Obligatory Aid. Journal of Moral Philosophy 8 (1):45-67.
    Common sense tells us that in certain circumstances, helping someone is morally obligatory. That intuition appears incompatible with Kant's account of beneficence as a wide imperfect duty, and its implication that agents may exercise latitude over which beneficent actions to perform. In this paper, I offer a resolution to the problem from which it follows that some opportunities to help admit latitude and others do not. I argue that beneficence has two components: the familiar wide duty to help (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  11.  72
    Dale Dorsey (2009). Aggregation, Partiality, and the Strong Beneficence Principle. Philosophical Studies 146 (1):139 - 157.
    Consider the Strong Beneficence Principle (SBP): Persons of affluent means ought to give to those who might fail basic human subsistence until the point at which they must give up something of comparable moral importance. This principle has been the subject of much recent discussion. In this paper, I argue that no coherent interpretation of SBP can be found. SBP faces an interpretive trilemma, each horn of which should be unacceptable to fans of SBP; SBP is either (a) so (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12.  26
    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 (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  13.  21
    Diego S. 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 (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  14.  7
    Samuel Mansell (2013). Shareholder Theory and Kant's 'Duty of Beneficence'. Journal of Business Ethics 117 (3):583-599.
    This article draws on the moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant to explore whether a corporate ‘duty of beneficence’ to non-shareholders is consistent with the orthodox ‘shareholder theory’ of the firm. It examines the ethical framework of Milton Friedman’s argument and asks whether it necessarily rules out the well-being of non-shareholders as a corporate objective. The article examines Kant’s distinction between ‘duties of right’ and ‘duties of virtue’ (the latter including the duty of beneficence) and investigates their consistency with (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  15.  14
    Lisa Rivera (2011). Harmful Beneficence. Journal of Moral Philosophy 8 (2):197-222.
    Beneficence is usually regarded as adequate when it results in an actual benefit for a beneficiary and satisfies her self-chosen end. However, beneficence that satisfies these conditions can harm beneficiaries' free agency, particularly when they are robustly dependent on benefactors. First, the means that benefactors choose can have undesirable side-effects on resources that beneficiaries need for future free action. Second, benefactors may undermine beneficiaries' ability to freely deliberate and choose. It is therefore insufficient to satisfy someone's self-chosen ends. (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  16.  1
    John E. Atwell (1995). Fallacies in Two Objections to Kant's First Defense of the Duty of Beneficence in the Grundlegung. Argumentation 9 (4):633-643.
    The two best known objections to Kant's first defense of the duty of beneficence are examined and found to be fallacious. The first objection relies on the possibility of imagining an individual who would be willing for the maxim of nonbeneficence to be a universal law (but it fails to recognize that such an individual is not a rational person and thus not subject to morality at all); and the second objection, while granting the nonuniversalizability of the maxim of (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  17.  10
    Saleema Gulzar & Rozina Karmaliani (2012). Sexual Abuse: An Ethical Dilemma of Autonomy Vs. Beneficence and Role of Health Professionals in Community Setting. Asian Bioethics Review 4 (3).
    Nurses and doctors who deal with human lives have started questioning their own decisions and practices particularly when there is an ethical dilemma. To survive competently within the profession and to make ethical decisions for the client’s safety, one needs to be equipped with knowledge pertaining to Bio-Ethics. This paper brings attention to a real life dilemma of a sixteen year old female child who had been sexually abused by one of her family friends. She insisted the school health nurse (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  18.  13
    Robert M. Sade (2001). Autonomy and Beneficence in an Information Age. Health Care Analysis 9 (3):247-254.
  19. Robert Sparrow (2007). Procreative Beneficence, Obligation, and Eugenics. Genomics, Society and Policy 3 (3):43-59.
    The argument of Julian Savulescu’s 2001 paper, “Procreative Beneficence: Why We Should Select the Best Children” is flawed in a number of respects. Savulescu confuses reasons with obligations and equivocates between the claim that parents have some reason to want the best for their children and the more radical claim that they are morally obligated to attempt to produce the best child possible. Savulescu offers a prima facie implausible account of parental obligation, as even the best parents typically fail (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  20. Edmund D. Pellegrino (1988). For the Patient's Good: The Restoration of Beneficence in Health Care. Oxford University Press.
    In this companion volume to their 1981 work, A Philosophical Basis of Medical Practice, Pellegrino and Thomasma examine the principle of beneficence and its role in the practice of medicine. Their analysis, which is grounded in a thorough-going philosophy of medicine, addresses a wide array of practical and ethical concerns that are a part of health care decision-making today. Among these issues are the withdrawing and withholding of nutrition and hydration, competency assessment, the requirements for valid surrogate decision-making, quality-of-life (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   43 citations  
  21.  31
    Molly Gardner (2016). Beneficence and Procreation. Philosophical Studies 173 (2):321-336.
    Consider a duty of beneficence towards a particular individual, S, and call a reason that is grounded in that duty a “beneficence reason towards S.” Call a person who will be brought into existence by an act of procreation the “resultant person.” Is there ever a beneficence reason towards the resultant person for an agent to procreate? In this paper, I argue for such a reason by appealing to two main premises. First, we owe a pro tanto (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  22. Peter Herissone-Kelly (2011). Wrongs, Preferences, and the Selection of Children: A Critique of Rebecca Bennett's Argument Against the Principle of Procreative Beneficence. Bioethics 26 (8):447-454.
    Rebecca Bennett, in a recent paper dismissing Julian Savulescu's principle of procreative beneficence, advances both a negative and a positive thesis. The negative thesis holds that the principle's theoretical foundation – the notion of impersonal harm or non-person-affecting wrong – is indefensible. Therefore, there can be no obligations of the sort that the principle asserts. The positive thesis, on the other hand, attempts to plug an explanatory gap that arises once the principle has been rejected. That is, it holds (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  23.  47
    J. Savulescu (2007). In Defence of Procreative Beneficence. Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (5):284-288.
    Why potential parents should select the best child of possible children, and the necessity of a dialogue about the context of a reproductive decision.The principle of Procreative Beneficence is the principle of selecting the best child of the possible children one could have. This principle is elaborated on and defended against a range of objections. In particular, focus is laid on four objections that Michael Parker raises: that it is underdetermining, that it is insensitive to the complex nature of (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   11 citations  
  24.  5
    Ben Saunders (2015). Procreative Beneficence, Intelligence, and the Optimization Problem. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 40 (6):653-668.
    According to the Principle of Procreative Beneficence, reproducers should choose the child, of those available to them, expected to have the best life. Savulescu argues reproducers are therefore morally obligated to select for nondisease traits, such as intelligence. Carter and Gordon recently challenged this implication, arguing that Savulescu fails to establish that intelligence promotes well-being. This paper develops two responses. First, I argue that higher intelligence is likely to contribute to well-being on most plausible accounts. Second, I argue that, (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  25.  24
    J. Adam Carter & Emma C. Gordon (2013). Intelligence, Wellbeing and Procreative Beneficence. Journal of Applied Philosophy 30 (2):122-135.
    If Savulescu's (2001, 2009) controversial principle of Procreative Beneficence (PB) is correct, then an important implication is that couples should employ genetic tests for non-disease traits in selecting which child to bring into existence. Both defenders as well as some critics of this normative entailment of PB have typically accepted the comparatively less controversial claim about non-disease traits: that there are non-disease traits such that testing and selecting for them would in fact contribute to bringing about the child who (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  26.  28
    P. Herissone-Kelly (2006). Procreative Beneficence and the Prospective Parent. Journal of Medical Ethics 32 (3):166-169.
    Julian Savulescu has given clear expression to a principle—that of “procreative beneficence”—which underlies the thought of many contemporary writers on bioethics. The principle of procreative beneficence holds that parents or single reproducers are at least prima facie obliged to select the child, out of a range of possible children they might have, who will be likely to lead the best life. My aim in this paper is to argue that prospective parents, just by dint of their being prospective (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   7 citations  
  27.  56
    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 (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  28.  16
    Lisa Campo-Engelstein (2014). Paternal-Fetal Harm and Men’s Moral Duty to Use Contraception: Applying the Principles of Nonmaleficence and Beneficence to Men’s Reproductive Responsibility. Medicine Studies 4 (1-4):1-13.
    Discussions of reproductive responsibility generally draw heavily upon the principles of nonmaleficence and beneficence. However, these principles are typically only applied to women due to the incorrect belief that only women can cause fetal harm. The cultural perception that women are likely to cause fetal and child harm is reflected in numerous social norms, policies, and laws. Conversely, there is little public discussion of men and fetal and child harm, which implies that men do not cause such harm. My (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  29.  25
    Kean Birch (2005). Beneficence, Determinism and Justice: An Engagement with the Argument for the Genetic Selection of Intelligence. Bioethics 19 (1):12–28.
    ABSTRACTIn 2001, Julian Savulescu wrote an article entitled ‘Procreative Beneficence: Why We Should Select the Best Children’, in which he argued for the genetic selection of intelligence in children. That article contributes to a debate on whether genetic research on intelligence should be undertaken at all and, if so, should intelligence selection be available to potential parents. As such, the question of intelligence selection relates to wider issues concerning the genetic determination of behavioural traits, i.e. alcoholism. This article is (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  30.  57
    Stephen Wear & Jonathan D. Moreno (1994). Informed Consent: Patient Autonomy and Physician Beneficence Within Clinical Medicine. [REVIEW] HEC Forum 6 (5):323-325.
    Substantial efforts have recently been made to reform the physician-patient relationship, particularly toward replacing the `silent world of doctor and patient' with informed patient participation in medical decision-making. This 'new ethos of patient autonomy' has especially insisted on the routine provision of informed consent for all medical interventions. Stronly supported by most bioethicists and the law, as well as more popular writings and expectations, it still seems clear that informed consent has, at best, been received in a lukewarm fashion by (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  31.  2
    Kenneth A. Richman (2004). Ethics and the Metaphysics of Medicine: Reflections on Health and Beneficence. The MIT Press.
    Definitions of health and disease are of more than theoretical interest. Understanding what it means to be healthy has implications for choices in medical treatment, for ethically sound informed consent, and for accurate assessment of policies or programs. This deeper understanding can help us create more effective public policy for health and medicine. It is notable that such contentious legal initiatives as the Americans with Disability Act and the Patients' Bill of Rights fail to define adequately the medical terms on (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  32.  5
    W. A. Rogers (1999). Beneficence in General Practice: An Empirical Investigation. Journal of Medical Ethics 25 (5):388-393.
    OBJECTIVES: To study and report the attitudes of patients and general practitioners (GPs) concerning the obligation of doctors to act for the good of their patients, and to provide a practical account of beneficence in general practice. DESIGN: Semi-structured interviews administered to GPs and patients. SETTING AND SAMPLE: Participants randomly recruited from an age and gender stratified list of GPs in a geographically defined region of South Australia. The sample comprised twenty-one general practitioners and seventeen patients recruited by participating (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  33.  31
    William K. Frankena (1987). Beneficence/Benevolence. Social Philosophy and Policy 4 (2):1.
    I begin with a note about moral goodness as a quality, disposition, or trait of a person or human being. This has at least two different senses, one wider and one narrower. Aristotle remarked that the Greek term we translate as justice sometimes meant simply virtue or goodness as applied to a person and sometimes meant only a certain virtue or kind of goodness. The same thing is true of our word “goodness.” Sometimes being a good person means having all (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  34.  24
    Leonard M. Fleck (1989). Just Health Care : Is Beneficence Enough? Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 10 (2).
    Few in our society believe that access to health care should be determined primarily by ability to pay. We believe instead that society has an obligation to assure access to adequate health care for all. This is the view explicitly endorsed in the President's Commission Report Securing Access to Health Care. But there is an important moral ambiguity here, for this obligation may be construed as being either beneficence-based or justice -based. A beneficience-based construal would yield a much weaker (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  35.  7
    Howard Mann (2002). Therapeutic Beneficence and Patient Recruitment in Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials. American Journal of Bioethics 2 (2):35 – 36.
    (2002). Therapeutic Beneficence and Patient Recruitment in Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials. The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 35-36.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  36.  16
    Guy A. M. Widdershoven (2002). Beyond Autonomy and Beneficence. Ethical Perspectives 9 (2):96-102.
    Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are controversial issues in medical ethics and medical law. In the debate, several arguments against the moral acceptability and legal feasibility of active involvement of physicians in bringing about a patient’s death can be found.One argument refers back to the Ten Commandments: “Thou shall not kill”. Killing another human being is morally abject. According to the argument, this is certainly so for medical doctors, as can be seen in the Hippocratic Oath, which explicitly forbids abortion and (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  37.  13
    Joan C. Callahan (1984). Liberty, Beneficence, and Involuntary Confinement. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 9 (3):261-294.
    My purpose in this paper is to show that current legal criteria for paternalistic involuntary psychiatric confinement of the mentally ill are both too narrow and too broad. I do this by first developing a principle of justified paternalistic interference with adults, which I take to be acceptably protective of individual liberty, but which does not require unnecessary sacrifices of individual welfare. After offering an analysis of current legal criteria for involuntary confinement, 1 argue that an acceptable theory of paternalistic (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  38.  15
    Melissa Stobie & Catherine Slack (2010). Treatment Needs in Hiv Prevention Trials: Using Beneficence to Clarify Sponsor-Investigator Responsibilities. Developing World Bioethics 10 (3):150-157.
    Some participants will get HIV-infected in HIV prevention trials, despite risk reduction measures. The subsequent treatment responsibilities of sponsor-investigators have been widely debated, especially where access to antiretroviral therapy (ART) is not available. In this paper, we explore two accounts of beneficence to establish whether they can shed light on sponsor-investigator responsibilities. We find the notion of general beneficence helpful insofar as it clarifies that some beneficent actions will be obligatory where they can be dispensed without scuppering the (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  39.  7
    D. L. Denny & G. W. Guido (2012). Undertreatment of Pain in Older Adults: An Application of Beneficence. Nursing Ethics 19 (6):800-809.
    Inadequate pain control, especially in older adults, remains a significant issue when caring for this population. Older adults, many of whom experience multiple acute and chronic conditions, are especially vulnerable to having their pain seriously underassessed and inadequately treated. Nurses have an ethical obligation to appropriately treat patients’ pain. To fulfill their ethical obligation to relieve pain in older patients, nurses often need to advocate on their behalf. This article provides an overview of the persistent problem of undertreated pain in (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  40.  6
    Hans-Martin Sass (1983). Justice, Beneficence, or Common Sense?: The President's Commission's Report on Access to Health Care. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 8 (4):381-388.
    The President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research published in March of 1983 its Report, Securing Access to Health Care: The Ethical Implications of Differences in the Availability of Health Services . Concluding that there are "ethical obligations" on behalf of society which are balanced by individual obligations, the Report provides an ethical framework for ensuring "ultimate responsibility" of the Federal government to arrange for equitable access to health and to a fair (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  41. Julian Savulescu (2001). Procreative Beneficence: Why We Should Select the Best Children. Bioethics 15 (5-6):413-426.
    We have a reason to use information which is available about such genes in our reproductive decision-making; (3) couples should selec.
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   73 citations  
  42. Kyla Ebels‐Duggan (2008). Against Beneficence: A Normative Account of Love. Ethics 119 (1):142-170.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   20 citations  
  43. 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 (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  44. Chris Meyers (2004). Wrongful Beneficence: Exploitation and Third World Sweatshops. Journal of Social Philosophy 35 (3):319–333.
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   11 citations  
  45. 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.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   11 citations  
  46.  13
    Sarah Clark Miller (2003). Filial Obligation, Kant's Duty of Beneficence, and Need. In James Humber & Robert Almeder (eds.), Care of the Aged. Springer 169-197.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  47. Tom Beauchamp, The Principle of Beneficence in Applied Ethics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  48. Robert Noggle (2009). Give Till It Hurts? Beneficence, Imperfect Duties, and a Moderate Response to the Aid Question. Journal of Social Philosophy 40 (1):1-16.
  49. Richard Arneson, Moral Limits on the Demands of Beneficence?
    If you came upon a small child drowning in a pond, you ought to save the child even at considerable cost and risk to yourself. In 1972 Peter Singer observed that inhabitants of affluent industrialized societies stand in exactly the same relationship to the millions of poor inhabitants of poor undeveloped societies that you would stand to the small child drowning in the example just given. Given that you ought to help the drowning child, by parity of reasoning we ought (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  50.  2
    Adam Cureton (2016). Offensive Beneficence. Journal of the American Philosophical Association 2 (1):74--90.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
1 — 50 / 540