Why Are Religious Reasons Dismissed? Euthanasia, Basic Goods, and Gratuitous Evil
Many proponents of euthanasia eschew appeals to religious premises as good reasons for thinking that human life has intrinsic worth. The reasons offered are that religious reasons do not meet some theory-neutral epistemic standard. My first argument is to show that pro-euthanasia arguments fail to m...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Electronic Article |
Language: | English |
Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
Journals Online & Print: | |
Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
Published: |
Oxford University Press
[2016]
|
In: |
Christian bioethics
Year: 2016, Volume: 22, Issue: 3, Pages: 276-300 |
IxTheo Classification: | CB Christian life; spirituality CH Christianity and Society NCH Medical ethics |
Online Access: |
Volltext (Verlag) Volltext (doi) |
MARC
LEADER | 00000caa a22000002 4500 | ||
---|---|---|---|
001 | 1588454150 | ||
003 | DE-627 | ||
005 | 20211102173041.0 | ||
007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
008 | 190307s2016 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
024 | 7 | |a 10.1093/cb/cbw012 |2 doi | |
035 | |a (DE-627)1588454150 | ||
035 | |a (DE-576)518454150 | ||
035 | |a (DE-599)BSZ518454150 | ||
040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rda | ||
041 | |a eng | ||
084 | |a 1 |2 ssgn | ||
100 | 1 | |e VerfasserIn |0 (DE-588)1066620180 |0 (DE-627)817740287 |0 (DE-576)420613307 |4 aut |a Napier, Stephen E. | |
109 | |a Napier, Stephen E. |a Napier, Stephen | ||
245 | 1 | 0 | |a Why Are Religious Reasons Dismissed? Euthanasia, Basic Goods, and Gratuitous Evil |c Stephen Napier |
264 | 1 | |c [2016] | |
336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
520 | |a Many proponents of euthanasia eschew appeals to religious premises as good reasons for thinking that human life has intrinsic worth. The reasons offered are that religious reasons do not meet some theory-neutral epistemic standard. My first argument is to show that pro-euthanasia arguments fail to meet those same standards. In order to avoid this incoherence, the rejection of religious reasons is a function of thinking that such reasons are simply false. Arguing against religious belief has typically fallen to the evidential argument from evil. My second argument is to show that the argument from evil must hold to a basic goods account of human life. Such an account is contrary to the view of human life held by most euthanasia proponents. So, euthanasia proponents who reject religious belief on the basis of an argument from evil must hold to a contradictory view of human worth. One cannot both be a euthanasia proponent and reject arguments against euthanasia (that are based in part on religious premises). I explore ways to resolve this tension, but none save pro-euthanasia arguments. | ||
652 | |a CB:CH:NCH | ||
773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Christian bioethics |d Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1995 |g 22(2016), 3, Seite 276-300 |h Online-Ressource |w (DE-627)320433358 |w (DE-600)2004029-5 |w (DE-576)094085587 |x 1744-4195 |7 nnns |
773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:22 |g year:2016 |g number:3 |g pages:276-300 |
856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://academic.oup.com/cb/article/22/3/276/2639548 |x Verlag |3 Volltext |
856 | |u https://doi.org/10.1093/cb/cbw012 |x doi |3 Volltext | ||
951 | |a AR | ||
ELC | |a 1 | ||
ITA | |a 1 |t 1 | ||
LOK | |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 | ||
LOK | |0 001 3057805264 | ||
LOK | |0 003 DE-627 | ||
LOK | |0 004 1588454150 | ||
LOK | |0 005 20220208112911 | ||
LOK | |0 008 190307||||||||||||||||ger||||||| | ||
LOK | |0 040 |a DE-Tue135 |c DE-627 |d DE-Tue135 | ||
LOK | |0 092 |o n | ||
LOK | |0 852 |a DE-Tue135 | ||
LOK | |0 852 1 |9 00 | ||
LOK | |0 935 |a ixzs |a ixzo | ||
LOK | |0 936ln |0 1550736558 |a NCH | ||
LOK | |0 936ln |0 1442043768 |a CB | ||
LOK | |0 936ln |0 1550735845 |a CH | ||
ORI | |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw |