Analysing the Wrongness of Killing

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Standard

Analysing the Wrongness of Killing. / Di Nucci, Ezio.

In: Public Reason, Vol. 6, No. 1-2, 2014, p. 77-82.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Harvard

Di Nucci, E 2014, 'Analysing the Wrongness of Killing', Public Reason, vol. 6, no. 1-2, pp. 77-82. <http://publicreason.ro/cuprins/11>

APA

Di Nucci, E. (2014). Analysing the Wrongness of Killing. Public Reason, 6(1-2), 77-82. http://publicreason.ro/cuprins/11

Vancouver

Di Nucci E. Analysing the Wrongness of Killing. Public Reason. 2014;6(1-2):77-82.

Author

Di Nucci, Ezio. / Analysing the Wrongness of Killing. In: Public Reason. 2014 ; Vol. 6, No. 1-2. pp. 77-82.

Bibtex

@article{6508dc4e453f4b5084828aba4ef83a92,
title = "Analysing the Wrongness of Killing",
abstract = "This article provides an in-depth analysis of the wrongness of killing by comparing different versions of three influential views: the traditional view that killing is always wrong; the liberal view that killing is wrong if and only if the victim does not want to be killed; and Don Marquis‟ future of value account of the wrongness of killing. In particular, I illustrate the advantages that a basic version of the liberal view and a basic version of the future of value account have over competing alternatives. Still, ultimately none of the views analysed here are satisfactory; but the different reasons why those competing views fail provide important insights into the ethics of killing.",
author = "{Di Nucci}, Ezio",
year = "2014",
language = "English",
volume = "6",
pages = "77--82",
journal = "Public Reason",
issn = "2065-7285",
publisher = "Faculty of Philosophy, University of Bucharest",
number = "1-2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Analysing the Wrongness of Killing

AU - Di Nucci, Ezio

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - This article provides an in-depth analysis of the wrongness of killing by comparing different versions of three influential views: the traditional view that killing is always wrong; the liberal view that killing is wrong if and only if the victim does not want to be killed; and Don Marquis‟ future of value account of the wrongness of killing. In particular, I illustrate the advantages that a basic version of the liberal view and a basic version of the future of value account have over competing alternatives. Still, ultimately none of the views analysed here are satisfactory; but the different reasons why those competing views fail provide important insights into the ethics of killing.

AB - This article provides an in-depth analysis of the wrongness of killing by comparing different versions of three influential views: the traditional view that killing is always wrong; the liberal view that killing is wrong if and only if the victim does not want to be killed; and Don Marquis‟ future of value account of the wrongness of killing. In particular, I illustrate the advantages that a basic version of the liberal view and a basic version of the future of value account have over competing alternatives. Still, ultimately none of the views analysed here are satisfactory; but the different reasons why those competing views fail provide important insights into the ethics of killing.

M3 - Journal article

VL - 6

SP - 77

EP - 82

JO - Public Reason

JF - Public Reason

SN - 2065-7285

IS - 1-2

ER -

ID: 158208288