11 found
Sort by:
  1. Melinda A. Roberts (2012). Does the Non-Identity Problem Imply a Double Standard for Physicians and Patients? American Journal of Bioethics 12 (8):38 - 39.
    The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 8, Page 38-39, August 2012.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Melinda A. Roberts (2011). An Asymmetry in the Ethics of Procreation. Philosophy Compass 6 (11):765-776.
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Melinda A. Roberts (2011). The Asymmetry: A Solution. Theoria 77 (4):333-367.
    The Asymmetry consists of two claims. (A) That a possible person's life would be abjectly miserable –less than worth living – counts against bringing that person into existence. But (B) that a distinct possible person's life would be worth living or even well worth living does not count in favour of bringing that person into existence. In recent years, the view that the two halves of the Asymmetry are jointly untenable has become increasingly entrenched. If we say all persons matter (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Melinda A. Roberts (2009). The Nonidentity Problem and the Two Envelope Problem: When is One Act Better for a Person Than Another?. In. In David Wasserman & Melinda Roberts (eds.), Harming Future Persons. Springer. 201--228.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Melinda A. Roberts (2005). Supernumerary Pregnancies, the Harm Issue and the Limits of Constitutional Privacy. Journal of Philosophical Research 30 (Supplement):105-117.
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Melinda A. Roberts (2003). Can It Ever Be Better Never to Have Existed at All? Person-Based Consequentialism and a New Repugnant Conclusion. Journal of Applied Philosophy 20 (2):159–185.
  7. Melinda A. Roberts (2003). Is the Person-Affecting Intuition Paradoxical? Theory and Decision 55 (1):1-44.
    This article critically examines some of the inconsistency objections that have been put forward by John Broome, Larry Temkin and others against the so-called "person-affecting," or "person-based," restriction in normative ethics, including "extra people" problems and a version of the nonidentity problem from Kavka and Parfit. Certain Pareto principles and a version of the "mere addition paradox" are discussed along the way. The inconsistencies at issue can be avoided, it is argued, by situating the person-affecting intuition within a non-additive form (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Melinda A. Roberts (1998). Child Versus Childmaker: Future Persons and Present Duties in Ethics and the Law. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Melinda A. Roberts (1995). Present Duties and Future Persons: When Are Existence-Inducing Acts Wrong? [REVIEW] Law and Philosophy 14 (3/4):297 - 327.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Melinda A. Roberts (1994). A Way of Looking at the Dalla Corte Case. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 22 (4):339-342.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Melinda A. Roberts (1993). Good Intentions and a Great Divide: Having Babies by Intending Them. [REVIEW] Law and Philosophy 12 (3):287 - 317.
    Thus, there is a compelling policy argument as well as a suggestive constitutional argument that the practice of selling parental rights in general, and in particular the practice of commercial surrogacy, should not be permitted. These arguments favor the approach adopted in New York State as opposed to any more latitudinarian approach that would permit commercial surrogacy. Clearly, if the payment of money in exchange for parental rights should be prohibited, then we have a strong basis on which to reject (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation