On Gilmore's Definition of 'Dead'

Philosophia 39 (1):105-110 (2011)
Gilmore proposes a new definition of ‘dead’ in response to Fred Feldman’s earlier definition in terms of ‘lives’ and ‘dies.’ In this paper, I critically examine Gilmore’s new definition. First, I explain what his definition is and how it is an improvement upon Feldman’s definition. Second, I raise an objection to it by noting that it fails to rule out the possibility of a thing that dies without becoming dead
Keywords Dead  Dies  Lives  Abiotic  In stasis  Definition  Gilmore  Feldman
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11406-010-9261-x
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 29,820
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
The Enigma of Death.Fred Feldman - 1992 - Philosophia 21 (3-4):163-181.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Definition.Richard Robinson - 1950 - Clarendon Press.
The Dead Donor Rule: True by Definition.Robert M. Veatch - 2003 - American Journal of Bioethics 3 (1):10 – 11.
On Substance.Patrick Toner - 2010 - American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 84 (1):25-48.
Socratic Definition.Jeffrey Gold - 1984 - Philosophy Research Archives 10:573-588.
On the Definition of “Religion”.Phillip E. Devine - 1986 - Faith and Philosophy 3 (3):270-284.
Abandon the Dead Donor Rule or Change the Definition of Death?Robert M. Veatch - 2004 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14 (3):261-276.
Added to PP index

Total downloads
35 ( #160,178 of 2,210,108 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #382,810 of 2,210,108 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature