On Gilmore’s Definition of ‘Dead’

Philosophia 39 (1):105-110 (2011)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Gilmore proposes a new definition of ‘dead’ in response to Fred Feldman’s earlier definition in terms of ‘lives’ and ‘dies.’ In this paper, I critically examine Gilmore’s new definition. First, I explain what his definition is and how it is an improvement upon Feldman’s definition. Second, I raise an objection to it by noting that it fails to rule out the possibility of a thing that dies without becoming dead

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,075

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Definition.Richard Robinson - 1950 - Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Abandon the dead donor rule or change the definition of death?Robert M. Veatch - 2004 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14 (3):261-276.
On the Definition of “Religion”.Phillip E. Devine - 1986 - Faith and Philosophy 3 (3):270-284.
Socratic Definition.Jeffrey Gold - 1984 - Philosophy Research Archives 10:573-588.
On Substance.Patrick Toner - 2010 - American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 84 (1):25-48.
The dead donor rule: True by definition.Robert M. Veatch - 2003 - American Journal of Bioethics 3 (1):10 – 11.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-08-02

Downloads
58 (#277,064)

6 months
4 (#794,133)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Seahwa Kim
Ewha Womans University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations