Why letting die instead of killing? Choosing active euthanasia on moral grounds

Ever since the debate concerning euthanasia was ignited, the distinction between active and passive euthanasia – or, letting die and killing – has been marked as one of its key issues. In this paper I will argue that a) the borderline between act and omission is an altogether blurry one, and it gets even vaguer when it comes to euthanasia, b) there is no morally significant difference between active and passive euthanasia, and c) if there is any, it seems to favor active instead of passive euthanasia. Therefore, while the distinction between active and passive euthanasia might be meaningful in terms of description, if it is considered to be endowed with moral weight and used on purpose of justifying one type of euthanasia instead of the other, it becomes morally problematic and misleading

“Ethical Minefields” and the Voice of Common Sense: A Discussion with Julian Savulescu

Theoretical ethics includes both metaethics (the meaning of moral terms) and normative ethics (ethical theories and principles). Practical ethics involves making decisions about every day real ethical problems, like decisions about euthanasia, what we should eat, climate change, treatment of animals, and how we should live. It utilizes ethical theories, like utilitarianism and Kantianism, and principles, but more broadly a process of reflective equilibrium and consistency to decide how to act and be

Federal deficits: a faulty gauge of government's impact on financial markets

Deficit financing

Revealing real interest rates: let the market do it

Interest rates ; Inflation (Finance)

Are government deficits monetized? Some international evidence

Deficit financing ; Monetary policy ; Debts, Public ; Money supply

ETIKA DOPINGA: IZMEĐU PATERNALIZMA I DUŽNOSTI

The most plausible line of anti-doping argumentation starts with the fact that performance enhancing substances are harmful and put at considerable risk the health and the life of those who indulge in the overwhelming promises these substances hold. From a liberal point of view, however, this is not a strong reason neither to morally reject doping altogether, nor to put a blanket ban on it; on the contrary, allowing adult, competent and informed athletes to have access to performance enhancement drugs is often showcased as a liberty-related right of noninterference. In this article I will first discuss doping from the liberal point of view, especially in the light of the harm principle as it was introduced by Mill and elaborated by his successors, most notably by Joel Feinberg. Then I will examine whether – and to what degree – one’s decision to receive performance enhancement drugs would mean to use humanity in one’s own person only as a means, which would be self-defeating in the light of Kantian ethics. From this I will move one step backwards to what I consider as the core question concerning the ethics of doping, the one that is logically prior to any other in my view, and concerns the consistency of the thesis that doping may be compatible with sport. I will argue that there is an inherent logical antinomy between doing sport and using performance enhancement drugs, one that presents any argumentation in favor of doping as essentially self-contradictory.Najuvjerljivija linija anti-doping argumentacije počinje činjenicom da su tvari za poboljšanje performansi štetne i da predstavljaju značajan rizik za zdravlje i život onih koji se upuštaju u prevladavajuća obećanja koja ove tvari sadrže. S liberalnog stajališta, međutim, to nije jak razlog niti da moralno odbacimo doping u potpunosti, niti da ga zabranimo; naprotiv, omogućavanje odraslim, kompetentnim i informiranim sportašima pristup lijekovima za poboljšanje performansi često se smatra oglednim primjerom prava povezanim sa slobodom nemiješanja. U ovom ću članku najprije raspraviti o dopingu s liberalnog stajališta, posebno u svjetlu načela štete jer ga je Mill uveo i razradio njegov nasljednik, ponajviše Joel Feinberg. Zatim ću ispitati hoće li - i u kojoj mjeri - nečija odluka o primanju lijekova za poboljšanje performansi značiti korištenje ljudskosti u vlastitoj osobi samo kao sredstvo, koje bi bilo samopobijajuće u svjetlu kantovske etike. Od ovoga ću napraviti korak unatrag do onoga što smatram temeljnim pitanjem etike dopinga, onim koje je po mom mišljenju logično prije bilo kojeg drugog, a tiče se dosljednosti teze da doping može biti kompatibilan sa sportom. Ustvrdit ću da postoji inherentna logička antinomija između bavljenja sportom i korištenja lijekova za poboljšanje performansi, koja predstavlja bilo kakvu argumentaciju u korist dopinga kao suštinski samo-kontradiktorne

The Mainframe of an Adequate and Effective Environmental Ethics

During the last two centuries, occidental philosophical meditation has triumphantly advanced through previously poorly charted fields. Science has reallocated the methods as well as the goals of philosophy, forcing scholars to advance a little further, embrace new cognitive challenges and correspond to new social needs. As a result, our everyday life has become easier and our world is a better place to live in. But still, an optimum situation is not achieved. As a matter of fact, there are more things at stake in our era than there were in previous ones. Even basic prerequisites for a prosperous life are not fully met. For the first time in the history of mankind, we can not even be sure about the survival of our planet, not to mention well being of it’s living entities –man included. So far, where is the improvement? Our ancestors may not have had the luxury of fast transportation, immediate information or adequate medical treatment, still they could take some things for granted: they positively knew that they and their successors would be given the minimum of chances: they, at least, would have a place to live

Clones, Prototypes, and the Right to Uniqueness

Human cloning until recently has been considered to belong to the domain of science fiction; now it is a tangible possibility, a hopeful as well as a fearsome one. One of the fears that necessarily come along with it is about the peril cloning might represent for human uniqueness, since the clones are expected to be identical to their prototypes; this would unavoidably compromise moral agents’ right to a unique identity. In this paper I will put under examination the argument against cloning that is based upon the right to a unique identity; I will argue that cloning represents no actual threat for anybody’s unique identity, therefore this argument is futile. I will also support the view that the so-called right to a unique identity is not as indisputable as to serve as the basis of a moral argument against human reproductive cloning