Philosophia 39 (1):105-110 (2011)
Authors |
|
Abstract |
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 |
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
Confrontations with the Reaper: A Philosophical Study of the Nature and Value of Death.Fred Feldman - 1992 - Oxford University Press.
Confrontations with the Reaper: A Philosophical Study of the Nature and Value of Death.Fred Feldman - 1994 - Oxford University Press USA.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Abandon the Dead Donor Rule or Change the Definition of Death?Robert M. Veatch - 2004 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14 (3):261-276.
A Diagram of Definition: The Defining of Definition.Alexander Matthews - 1998 - Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum.
The Dead Donor Rule: True by Definition.Robert M. Veatch - 2003 - American Journal of Bioethics 3 (1):10 – 11.
The Dead Donor Rule: How Much Does the Public Care ... And How Much Should.Megan Crowley-Matoka & Robert M. Arnold - 2004 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14 (3):319-332.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2010-08-02
Total views
52 ( #215,996 of 2,498,296 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #426,910 of 2,498,296 )
2010-08-02
Total views
52 ( #215,996 of 2,498,296 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #426,910 of 2,498,296 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads