Craniotomy versus Lethal Self-Defense

The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 13 (4):611-616 (2013)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

It can be confusing to define the object of an action because it may be unclear if there is a per se or a per accidens order to the end. Three common difficulties in distinguishing between these are that the per se ordering must be either in the nature of the end or in the act, that this ordering to an end is a real and not merely a logical one, and that technology has a tendency to ignore the teleology of natures by breaking things down to their parts for manipulation. Having drawn these distinctions, craniotomy is then compared to lethal self-defense. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 13.4 : 611–616.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,227

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

Two craniotomy arguments don't make it.Robert P. Goodwin - 2003 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 28 (1):79 – 88.
Contra Craniotomy: A Defense of William E. May’s Original Position.Austin J. Holgard - 2015 - The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 15 (4):675-686.
Forbidding intentional mutilation: Some unintended consequences?Heidi M. Giebel - 2007 - International Philosophical Quarterly 47 (4):467-476.
Defending A Rodinian Account of Self-Defense.Jacob Blair - 2012 - Review Journal of Political Philosophy 9:7-47.

Analytics

Added to PP
2016-06-30

Downloads
14 (#995,076)

6 months
2 (#1,206,802)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Luke Murray
Birkbeck College

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references