though this points towards a very important aspect, the badness of death cannot be explained solely via the desire to continue living.
For one thing, one does not always have to explicitly express a desire for x for x to be in one’s interest and, accordingly, to be harmed by x’s non-occurrence. In
harm to a child than it does to a newborn infant, then we are in need of an alternative account of the badness of death. Jeff McMahan now proposes that how much someone is harmed by his death is not only a question of how much future good his life would have contained, but also, how much he himself is
riches with the whole of what is in our self-interest. Being accepted by others, living in and contributing to a stable community that provides enough for everyone might very well be more in our inherent self-interest, even if we earn less. Earning and possessing more at the expense of being shunned
continuing to live is so weak in relation to our interest in ending the cow’s life, that her death can be morally justified. Another person may disagree on the basis that the cow’s inherent value gave her a right not to be sacrificed for the greater overall utility. Put differently, the claim that animals
Scanlon, that is not all that is relevant. We also have to take into account the fact that an agent has a »special claim to and authority over his or her own life and body« (Scanlon 2000, 313). Accepting a principle that permitted killing A so that B and C will not be killed »would be to take the view
I am taking it as read that there are certain prerequisites to livinga fully flourishing human life: that in order to do so an individual must have the capability, or meaningful opportunity, to enjoy continued life (at least to a normal human length), bodily health, bodily integrity
situation is highly observer-dependent and context-dependent; we are not suggesting that each situation in life has a unique essence. Quite the opposite! But whenever we face a new situation, our brain does indeed extract for us an essence, and it does this rapidly and unconsciously, thereby instilling in
premises. The first premise seems to be true: That cosmic evolution has led to the development of living creatures that have a complex, phenomenal inner life can be confirmed by oneself. The second premise is also true because it covers all relevant explanatory types of the emergence and existence of
Taylor : The best way to answer this question is to look at the way the pluralism challenge presents itself in the current situation. As a matter of fact, we are all living – I am talking here about democratic societies of the northwest – in societies that are characterized by a deep and dynamic
obtaining food. Or, consider a person who is constantly told untrue or misleading information. She will not only be unable to successfully achieve her desired goal that motivates her to act but she will also have a hard time maintaining the resources she already successfully achieved.
Next to well