Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Elements of Moral Philosophy is a 1986 ethics textbook by the philosophers James Rachels and Stuart Rachels. [1] It explains a number of moral theories and topics, including cultural relativism, subjectivism, divine command theory, ethical egoism, social contract theory, utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, and deontology. The book uses real ...
Rachels authored papers defending moral vegetarianism.His best known paper on the subject was The Basic Argument for Vegetarianism in 2004. Rachels proposed what he called the basic argument for vegetarianism which he believed is supported by a simple principle that every decent person accepts: it is wrong to cause pain unless there is a good enough reason.
The philosopher James Rachels recommended the book "as an introduction centered on such practical issues as abortion, racism, and so forth." [5] The philosopher Mylan Engel called the book "must reading for anyone interested in living an ethical life." [6] H. L. A. Hart's review of the first edition in The New York Review of Books was mixed.
According to euthanasia opponent Ezekiel Emanuel, proponents of euthanasia have presented four main arguments: a) that people have a right to self-determination, and thus should be allowed to choose their own fate; b) assisting a subject to die might be a better choice than requiring that they continue to suffer; c) the distinction between ...
[1] This chapter is well known for advancing two arguments against moral universalism: the argument from disagreement and the argument from queerness. The chapter is excerpted in the fourth (2007) edition of Stuart and James Rachels's The Right Thing to Do: Basic Readings in Moral Philosophy. [2]
As applied to the euthanasia debate, the slippery slope argument claims that the acceptance of certain practices, such as physician-assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia, will invariably lead to the acceptance or practice of concepts which are currently deemed unacceptable, such as non-voluntary or involuntary euthanasia. Thus, it is argued ...
Voluntary euthanasia is the purposeful ending of another person's life at their request, in order to relieve them of suffering.Voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS) have been the focus of intense debate in the 21st century, surrounding the idea of a right to die.
The Court also felt that if it declared physician-assisted suicide a constitutionally protected right, it would start down the path to voluntary and perhaps involuntary euthanasia. Justice O'Connor concurred, and Justices Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Stevens each wrote opinions concurring in the judgment of the court.