95 found
Order:
Disambiguations:
Jeff Mcmahan [91]Jefferson McMahan [4]
  1.  21
    Jeff McMahan (2002). The Ethics of Killing: Problems at the Margins of Life. OUP Usa.
    This magisterial work is the first comprehensive study of the ethics of killing, where the moral status of the individual is uncertain or controversial. Drawing on philosophical notions of personal identity and the wrongness of killing, McMahan looks carefully at a host of practical issues including abortion, infanticide, the killing of animals, assisted suicide and euthanasia.
  2.  38
    Jeff McMahan (2009/2011). Killing in War. Oxford University Press.
    Jeff McMahan urges us to reject the view, dominant throughout history, that mere participation in an unjust war is not wrong.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   27 citations  
  3. Jeff McMahan (2004). The Ethics of Killing in War. Ethics 114 (4):693-733.
    The traditional theory of the just war comprises two sets of principles, one governing the resort to war ( jus ad bellum) and the other governing the conduct of war ( jus in bello). The two sets of principles are regarded, in Michael Walzer’s words, as “logically independent. It is perfectly possible for a just war to be fought unjustly and for an unjust war to be fought in strict accordance with the rules.”1 Let us say that those who fight (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   30 citations  
  4.  96
    Jeff McMahan (2009). Intention, Permissibility, Terrorism, and War. Philosophical Perspectives 23 (1):345-372.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   9 citations  
  5. Jeff McMahan (2006). The Ethics of Killing in War. Philosophia 34 (1):693-733.
    This paper argues that certain central tenets of the traditional theory of the just war cannot be correct. It then advances an alternative account grounded in the same considerations of justice that govern self-defense at the individual level. The implications of this account are unorthodox. It implies that, with few exceptions, combatants who fight for an unjust cause act impermissibly when they attack enemy combatants, and that combatants who fight in a just war may, in certain circumstances, legitimately target noncombatants (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   11 citations  
  6.  33
    N. Ann Davis, Richard Keshen & Jeff McMahan (eds.) (2010). Ethics and Humanity: Themes From the Philosophy of Jonathan Glover. Oxford University Press.
    Ethics and Humanity pays to tribute to Jonathan Glover, a pioneering figure whose thought and personal influence have had a significant impact on applied ...
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  7. Jeff McMahan (2006). On the Moral Equality of Combatants. Journal of Political Philosophy 14 (4):377–393.
    THERE’S a well-known scene in Shakespeare’s Henry V in which the King, disguised as an ordinary soldier, is conversing with some of his soldiers on the eve of the battle of Agincourt. Hoping to find or inspire support among them, he remarks: “Methinks I could not die anywhere so contented as in the King’s company, his cause being just and his quarrel honorable.” One soldier replies: “That’s more than we know,” whereupon a second says: “Ay, or more than we should (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   10 citations  
  8.  39
    Jeff McMahan (2005). Just Cause for War. Ethics and International Affairs 19 (3):1–21.
    which I will argue must ultimately be ment that there be a good or compelling assessed by reference to the moral plausireason to go to war—and then to observe bility both of these implications and of that, at least until quite recently, contemthe larger understanding of a just war in porary just war theory and international which the conception is embedded. As I law have recognized only one just cause..
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   11 citations  
  9.  75
    Jeff McMahan (2005). The Basis of Moral Liability to Defensive Killing. Philosophical Issues 15 (1):386–405.
    There may be circumstances in which it is morally justifiable intentionally to kill a person who is morally innocent, threatens no one, rationally wishes not to die, and does not consent to be killed. Although the killing would wrong the victim, it might be justified by the necessity of averting some disaster that would otherwise occur. In other instances of permissible killing, however, the justification appeals to more than consequences. It may appeal to the claim that the person to be (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   10 citations  
  10. Jeff McMahan (2010). Pacifism and Moral Theory. Diametros 23:44-68.
    There is a nonabsolute or “contingent” form of pacifism that claims that war in contemporary conditions inevitably involves the killing of innocent people on a scale that is too great to be justified. Some contingent pacifists argue that war always involves a risk that virtually everyone that one might kill is innocent – either because one can never be sure that one’s cause is just or because even most of those who fight in wars that lack a just cause are (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  11.  74
    Jeff McMahan (1994). Self-Defense and the Problem of the Innocent Attacker. Ethics 104 (2):252-290.
    Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   19 citations  
  12.  88
    Jeff McMahan (2008). Challenges to Human Equality. Journal of Ethics 12 (1):81 - 104.
    According to liberal egalitarian morality, all human beings are one another's moral equals. Nonhuman animals, by contrast, are not considered to be our moral equals. This essay considers two challenges to the liberal egalitarian view. One is the ``separation problem,'' which is the challenge to identify a morally significant intrinsic difference between all human beings and all nonhuman animals. The other is the “equality problem,” which is to explain how all human beings can be morally equal when there are some (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  13.  80
    Jeff Mcmahan (2010). The Just Distribution of Harm Between Combatants and Noncombatants. Philosophy and Public Affairs 38 (4):342-379.
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  14.  19
    Jeff McMahan (2008). The Morality of War and the Law of War. In David Rodin & Henry Shue (eds.), Just and Unjust Warriors: The Moral and Legal Status of Soldiers. OUP Oxford 19--43.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  15.  39
    Jeff McMahan (2004). War as Self-Defense. Ethics and International Affairs 18 (1):75–80.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   9 citations  
  16.  54
    Jeff McMahan (2013). Causing People to Exist and Saving People's Lives. Journal of Ethics 17 (1-2):5-35.
    Most people are skeptical of the claim that the expectation that a person would have a life that would be well worth living provides a reason to cause that person to exist. In this essay I argue that to cause such a person to exist would be to confer a benefit of a noncomparative kind and that there is a moral reason to bestow benefits of this kind. But this conclusion raises many problems, among which is that it must be (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  17. Jeff McMahan (1994). Innocence, Self-Defense and Killing in War. Journal of Political Philosophy 2 (3):193–221.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   14 citations  
  18. Jeff Mcmahan (2007). Killing Embryos for Stem Cell Research. Metaphilosophy 38 (2-3):170–189.
    The main objection to human embryonic stem cell research is that it involves killing human embryos, which are essentially beings of the same sort that you and I are. This objection presupposes that we once existed as early embryos and that we had the same moral status then that we have now. This essay challenges both those presuppositions, but focuses primarily on the first. I argue first that these presuppositions are incompatible with widely accepted beliefs about both assisted conception and (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  19.  57
    Jeff Mcmahan (1996). Cognitive Disability, Misfortune, and Justice. Philosophy and Public Affairs 25 (1):3–35.
  20. Jeff McMahan (2005). Causing Disabled People to Exist and Causing People to Be Disabled. Ethics 116 (1):77-99.
    Attempts to determine or to select what kind of person or people to bring into existence are controversial. This is particularly true of “negative selection” or “selecting against” a certain type of person—that is, the attempt to prevent a person of a certain type, or people of that type, from existing. Virtually everyone agrees that some instances of negative selection are objectionable—for example, that selection against healthy people would be wrong, particularly if this were combined with positive selection of people (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  21.  13
    Jeff McMahan (2009). Asymmetries in the Morality of Causing People to Exist. In David Wasserman & Melinda Roberts (eds.), Harming Future Persons. Springer 49--68.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  22.  5
    Jeff Mcmahan (2009). 9.1. The Radically Cognitively Limited. In Kimberley Brownlee & Adam Cureton (eds.), Disability and Disadvantage. Oxford University Press
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  23.  27
    Jeff McMahan (2000). Moral Intuition. In Hugh LaFollette - (ed.), The Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory. Blackwell Publishers 92--110.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  24.  54
    Jeff Mcmahan (2009). Cognitive Disability and Cognitive Enhancement. Metaphilosophy 40 (3-4):582-605.
  25.  10
    Jeff McMahan (2013). Genetic Modification of Characteristic Masculine Traits: Enhancement or Deformity? Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (12):736-740.
    Some philosophers, most notably Julian Savulescu, have argued that potential parents have a moral reason to do what they can to have a child with the highest expected level of well-being.1 This is not just a reason to do what will make a particular child better off than he or she would otherwise be but also a reason to choose, from among different possible children, the one that has the highest expected well-being. The claim that potential parents have such a (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  26. Jeff McMahan (1994). Revising the Doctrine of Double Effect. Journal of Applied Philosophy 11 (2):201-212.
    The Doctrine of Double Effect has been challenged by the claim that what an agent intends as a means may be limited to those effects that are precisely characterized by the descriptions under which the agent believes that they are minimally causally necessary for the production of other effects that the agent seeks to bring about. If based on so narrow a conception of an intended means, the traditional Doctrine of Double Effect becomes limitlessly permissive. In this paper I examine (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   8 citations  
  27. Jeff McMahan (2005). “Our Fellow Creatures”. Journal of Ethics 9 (3-4):353 - 380.
    This paper defends “moral individualism” against various arguments that have been intended to show that membership in the human species or participation in our distinctively human form of life is a sufficient basis for a moral status higher than that of any animal. Among the arguments criticized are the “nature-of-the-kind argument,” which claims that it is the nature of all human beings to have certain higher psychological capacities, even if, contingently, some human beings lack them, and various versions of the (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  28. Jeff McMahan (1993). Killing, Letting Die, and Withdrawing Aid. Ethics 103 (2):250-279.
    Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   8 citations  
  29.  5
    Jeff McMahan (2011). Proportionality in the Afghanistan War. Ethics and International Affairs 25 (2):143-154.
    Some of the questions Professor Miller addresses are concerned with proportionality, a notion whose complexities are only beginning to be appreciated. My modest ambition in this comment is to try to sharpen these questions and provide some assistance in thinking about them.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  30.  38
    Jeff McMahan (2006). Alternative to Brain Death. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 34 (1):44-48.
    This article criticizes a range of assumptions that proponents of brain death usually share. It argues that one of the main contentions made in defense of brain death – that the brain is necessary for integrated functioning in a human organism – is mistaken. It then sketches an alternative account of human death that distinguishes between the biological death of a human organism and the death or ceasing to exist of a person.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  31. Jeff McMahan (1995). The Metaphysics of Brain Death. Bioethics 9 (2):91–126.
    The dominant conception of brain death as the death of the whole brain constitutes an unstable compromise between the view that a person ceases to exist when she irreversibly loses the capacity for consciousness and the view that a human organism dies only when it ceases to function in an integrated way. I argue that no single criterion of death captures the importance we attribute both to the loss of the capacity for consciousness and to the loss of functioning of (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  32. Jeff McMahan (1988). Death and the Value of Life. Ethics 99 (1):32-61.
    Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   8 citations  
  33.  39
    Jeff McMahan (2008). Debate: Justification and Liability in War. Journal of Political Philosophy 16 (2):227–244.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  34.  12
    Jeff McMahan (2015). Proportionality and Time. Ethics 125 (3):696-719.
    Proportionality in the resort to war determines a limit to the amount of harm it can be permissible to cause for the sake of achieving a just cause. It seems to follow that if a war has caused harm up to that limit but has not achieved the just cause, it should be terminated. I argue, however, that this is a mistake. Judgments of proportionality are entirely prospective and harms suffered or inflicted in the past should in general be ignored. (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  35.  25
    Jeff McMahan & Robert McKim (1993). The Just War and the Gulf War. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 23 (4):501 - 541.
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   9 citations  
  36.  39
    Jeff McMahan (2005). Self-Defense and Culpability. Law and Philosophy 24 (6):751-774.
    Moral agents sometimes have to act on the basis of beliefs that are reasonable in the context but are in fact false. In these circumstances, agents often act in ways that would be right if their beliefs were true but that they would recognize as wrong if they could see that their beliefs were false. Sometimes our tendency is to think that what these agents do is justified – for example, in the case discussed by Ferzan in which one person, (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  37. Jeff McMahan (2007). Infanticide. Utilitas 19 (2):131-159.
    It is sometimes suggested that if a moral theory implies that infanticide can sometimes be permissible, that is sufficient to discredit the theory. I argue in this article that the common-sense belief that infanticide is wrong, and perhaps even worse than the killing of an adult, is challenged not so much by theoretical considerations as by common-sense beliefs about abortion, the killing of non-human animals, and so on. Because there are no intrinsic differences between premature infants and viable fetuses, it (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  38. Jeff McMahan, The Lucretian Argument.
    Lucretius wrote: “Look back at the eternity that passed before we were born, and mark how utterly it counts to us as nothing. This is a mirror that Nature holds up to us, in which we may see the time that shall be after we are dead. Is there anything terrifying in the sight – anything depressing – anything that is not more restful than the soundest sleep?”1 The argument is repeated, a couple of millennia later, by Vladimir Nabokov, who (...)
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  39.  70
    Jeff McMahan (2006). Paradoxes of Abortion and Prenatal Injury. Ethics 116 (4):625-655.
    Many people who believe that abortion may often be justified by appeal to the pregnant woman’s interests also believe that a woman’s infliction of significant but nonlethal injury on her fetus can seldom be justified by appeal to her interests. Yet the second of these beliefs can seem to cast doubt on the first. For the view that the infliction of prenatal injury is seriously morally objectionable may seem to presuppose a view about the status of the fetus that challenges (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  40. Jeff McMahan (2006). Killing in War: A Reply to Walzer. Philosophia 34 (1):47-51.
    Michael Walzer suggests that our common beliefs about individual responsibility and liability become largely irrelevant in the conduct of war. In conditions of war, everything is changed. Political realists have claimed that war eliminates morality; Walzer claims that war collectivizes it. I believe that conditions of war change nothing at all; they simply make it more difficult to ascertain relevant facts. This is not to say that the principles and laws that do or should govern the activity of war are (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  41.  4
    Jeff Mcmahan (2005). The Ethics of Killing. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 71 (2):477-490.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  42.  25
    Jeff McMahan (2007). Collectivist Defenses of the Moral Equality of Combatants. Journal of Military Ethics 6 (1):50-59.
  43.  27
    Tim Campbell & Jeff McMahan (2010). Animalism and the Varieties of Conjoined Twinning. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 31 (4):285-301.
    We defend the view that we are not identical to organisms against the objection that it implies that there are two subjects of every conscious state one experiences: oneself and one’s organism. We then criticize animalism—the view that each of us is identical to a human organism—by showing that it has unacceptable implications for a range of actual and hypothetical cases of conjoined twinning: dicephalus, craniopagus parasiticus, and cephalopagus.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  44.  28
    Jefferson McMahan (1981). Problems of Population Theory:Obligations to Future Generations. R. I. Sikora, Brian Barry. Ethics 92 (1):96-.
  45. Jeff McMahan, 6. War, Terrorism, and the `War on Terror'.
    Most of us agree that terrorism is always, or almost always, wrong, which is hardly surprising, since the word is generally used to express disapproval. If an act of which we approve has features characteristic of terrorism, we will be careful to deny that it is in fact an act of terrorism. For example, those who believe that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were morally justified tend to deny that they were instances of terrorism. So while we agree that (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  46.  30
    Jeff McMahan (1998). Wrongful Life: Paradoxes in the Morality of Causing People to Exist. In Jules L. Coleman, Christopher W. Morris & Gregory S. Kavka (eds.), Rational Commitment and Social Justice: Essays for Gregory Kavka. Cambridge University Press 208--47.
  47. Jeff McMahan, Nick Bostrom, Toby Ord, Paul E. Hurley, Pekka Väyrynen & Jacob Ross (2006). 10. Joseph Raz, The Practice of Value Joseph Raz, The Practice of Value (Pp. 805-809). Ethics 116 (4).
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  48.  94
    Jeff McMahan, I The Traditional Theory of the Just War.
    The traditional theory of the just war comprises two sets of principles, one governing the resort to war (jus ad bellum) and the other governing the conduct (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  49.  19
    Jeff McMahan (1995). Killing and Equality. Utilitas 7 (01):1-.
    Although the belief that killing is normally wrong is as universal and uncontroversial a moral belief as we are likely to find, no one, to my knowledge, has ever offered an account of why killing is wrong that even begins to do justice to the full range of common sense beliefs about the morality of killing. Yet such an account would be of considerable practical significance, since understanding why some killings are wrong should help us to determine the conditions in (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  50. David Estlund, Kok‐Chor Tan, Sophia Reibetanz, Susan J. Brison, Arthur Isak Applbaum, Tamara Horowitz, Elinor Mason & Jeff McMahan (1998). 10. Notes on Contributors Notes on Contributors (P. 460). In Stephen Everson (ed.), Ethics. Cambridge University Press
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
1 — 50 / 95