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.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Journal | Public Reason |
| Volume | 6 |
| Issue number | 1-2 |
| Pages (from-to) | 77-82 |
| Number of pages | 6 |
| ISSN | 2065-7285 |
| Publication status | Published - 2014 |