Harming, not aiding, and positive rights.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

18 Scopus citations

Abstract

Kamm considers the implications if the following two theses should prove true: killing and letting die are morally equivalent per se (Thesis E), as are harming and not aiding in cases where less than life is at stake (Thesis GE). She argues that each thesis has two versions, with one having broader implications than the other for deriving new rights or duties. These rights and duties are limited, however, by the need to apply the theses uniformly to cases that are equivalent in all respects. Kamm supports her arguments by exploring the notion of moral equivalence, discussing the methodology of testing for it, and broaching the subject of whether Theses E and GE are, in fact, true.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)3-32
Number of pages30
JournalPhilosophy & public affairs
Volume15
Issue number1
StatePublished - Dec 1986
Externally publishedYes

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
  • Political Science and International Relations
  • History and Philosophy of Science

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Harming, not aiding, and positive rights.'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this