Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Defeaters and Disqualifiers.Daniel Muñoz - 2019 - Mind 128 (511):887-906.
    Justification depends on context: even if E on its own justifies H, still it might fail to justify in the context of D. This sort of effect, epistemologists think, is due to defeaters, which undermine or rebut a would-be justifier. I argue that there is another fundamental sort of contextual feature, disqualification, which doesn't involve rebuttal or undercutting, and which cannot be reduced to any notion of screening-off. A disqualifier makes some would-be justifier otiose, as direct testimony sometimes does to (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • The Doctrine of Doing and Allowing I: Analysis of the Doing/Allowing Distinction.Fiona Woollard - 2012 - Philosophy Compass 7 (7):448-458.
    According to the Doctrine of Doing and Allowing, the distinction between doing and allowing harm is morally significant. Doing harm is harder to justify than merely allowing harm. This paper is the first of a two paper critical overview of the literature on the Doctrine of Doing and Allowing. In this paper, I consider the analysis of the distinction between doing and allowing harm. I explore some of the most prominent attempts to analyse this distinction:. Philippa Foot’s sequence account, Warren (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • The Doctrine of Doing and Allowing II: The Moral Relevance of the Doing/Allowing Distinction.Fiona Woollard - 2012 - Philosophy Compass 7 (7):459-469.
    According to the Doctrine of Doing and Allowing, the distinction between doing and allowing harm is morally significant. Doing harm is harder to justify than merely allowing harm. This paper is the second of a two paper critical overview of the literature on the Doctrine of Doing and Allowing. In this paper, I consider the moral status of the distinction between doing and allowing harm. I look at objections to the doctrine such as James’ Rachels’ Wicked Uncle Case and Jonathan (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Pogge, Poverty, and War.Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen - 2017 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 16 (4):446-469.
    According to Thomas Pogge, rich people do not simply violate a positive duty of assistance to help the global poor; rather, they violate a negative duty not to harm them. They do so by imposing an unjust global economic structure on poor people. Assuming that these claims are correct, it follows that, ceteris paribus, wars waged by the poor against the rich to resist this imposition are morally equivalent to wars waged in self-defense against military aggression. Hence, if self-defense against (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Are Enabling and Allowing Harm Morally Equivalent?Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen - 2015 - Utilitas 27 (3):365-383.
    It is sometimes asserted that enabling harm is morally equivalent to allowing harm. In this article, I criticize this view. Positively, I show that cases involving self-defence and cases involving people acting on the basis of a reasonable belief to the effect that certain obstacles to harm will remain in place, or will be put in place, show that enabling harm is harder to justify than allowing it. Negatively, I argue that certain cases offered in defence of the moral equivalence (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Beyond the Equivalence Thesis: How to Think About the Ethics of Withdrawing and Withholding Life-Saving Medical Treatment.Nathan Emmerich & Bert Gordijn - 2019 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 40 (1):21-41.
    With few exceptions, the literature on withdrawing and withholding life-saving treatment considers the bare fact of withdrawing or withholding to lack any ethical significance. If anything, the professional guidelines on this matter are even more uniform. However, while no small degree of progress has been made toward persuading healthcare professionals to withhold treatments that are unlikely to provide significant benefit, it is clear that a certain level of ambivalence remains with regard to withdrawing treatment. Given that the absence of clinical (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Killing and Letting Die: The Similarity Criterion.Joachim Asscher - 2007 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 24 (3):271–282.
  • On Denying A Significant Version Of The Constancy Assumption.Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen - 1999 - Theoria 65 (2-3):90-113.
  • Applying the Contribution Principle.Christian Barry - 2005 - Metaphilosophy 36 (1-2):210-227.
    When are we responsible for addressing the acute deprivations of others beyond state borders? One widely held view is that we are responsible for addressing or preventing acute deprivations insofar as we have contributed to them or are contributing to bringing them about. But how should agents who endorse this “contribution principle” of allocating responsibility yet are uncertain whether or how much they have contributed to some problem conceive of their responsibilities with respect to it? Legal systems adopt formal norms (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   23 citations