Recent works on the concept of dignity have opened up the otherwise quite deadlocked debate about assisted death (AD). Rather than just reinforcing already fixed positions, it seems to me that these conceptions of dignity make room for a moderate and normatively richer position on the moral permissibility of AD. I do not think that we have seen the full potential of the said conceptions and interpretations. I try in this article to contribute my part. First, I briefly recapitulate some (...) of the paradoxical ways in which dignity is typically invoked in the debate and try to clear up some of the obvious confusions. Then, I go on to explore a particular Kantian line of thought in some recent works on dignity and AD that seems to pave the way for a moderate position with a more principled foundation than the usual compromise positions. (shrink)

The aim of this article is to present and critically investigate a type of argument against legalising assisted dying on request (ADR) for patients who are terminally ill and experiencing suffering. This type of argument has several variants. These—which we call ‘autonomy-based arguments’ against legalising ADR—invoke different specifications of the premise that we ought not to respect requests for assistance in dying made by terminally ill and suffering patients because the basic conditions of autonomy cannot be met in scenarios where (...) such requests are made. Specifically, it is argued either (1) that as a result of pain, anxiety or desperation, terminally ill patients are not competent decision makers or (2) that legalisation of ADR would lead to social pressure or in other ways change the patient's context of choice in ways that make such requests nonautonomous. We argue that these types of arguments are problematic in light both of empirical studies and the fact that we usually judge that it is morally right to respect the wishes and decisions of dying people even if they suffer. (shrink)

It is a widely accepted claim that whether a given technology is being justly used in the real world is a separate question from moral issues intrinsic to technology. We should not blame the technology itself for immoral ways it happens to be used. There is obviously some truth to that. But I want to argue that what we see in the real world cases of drone killings is not merely an accidental or contingent use of drone technology. The real (...) life use reflects to a large extent features that are inherent of the dominant drone systems that have been developed to date. What is being imagined "in principle" is thus to a large extent drone killings in dreamland. I use an historic example as a point of reference and departure: the debate over the lawfulness of nuclear weapons. (shrink)

Certain methods and weapons are traditionally considered to be?mala in se?, i.e. evil in themselves. Examples are mass rape campaigns and land mines. This article examines different interpretations of the principle that belligerents ought not to use such means. Some interpretations are reductionist in the sense that they see the principle as an instance of other principles regulating conduct in war, namely the principles of discrimination and proportionality. I suggest a horizontal and a vertical dimension of the latter. Resort to (...) violence can then be unjustified if the persons are not liable to be attacked because they bear no responsibility for the relevant threat, the amount of harm is disproportionate compared to what can be achieved by the resort to violent force, or the kind of harm is disproportionate by making individual persons suffer in ways that no one should have to endure. I defend the vertical dimension of proportionality as a key to understanding the principle of mala in se and consider whether it leads to an absolute prohibition against such means. (shrink)

This article brings together two debates in bioethics more substantively than has been the case until now. One is the methodological debate over "principlism," i.e., the theoretical framework for analyzing and solving ethical problems proposed by Beauchamp and Childress in Principles of Biomedical Ethics. The other is the normative debate about reproductive ethics, i.e., procreative rights and obligations in a time of pervasive opportunities for making detailed choices about the properties and capacities of future people. The obvious point of bringing (...) the debates together is to show how they can illuminate each other in fruitful ways consistent with the method of reflective equilibrium endorsed in PBE. Furthermore, discussions of reproductive ethics is almost absent in PBE, making it an interesting "test case" on how principlist theory can have an impact on and be affected by confrontations with new practices and considerations in biomedicine. Reproductive ethics is especially interesting due to the so-called non-identity considerations, which pose a challenge to common morality views on harm to and respect for persons. My focus is mainly on some methodological points about the import of concrete normative discussions for formulating basic normative principles. However, I unfold a number of substantial points in order to demonstrate this. It is my impression that most writers on principlism underestimate the effect of engaging with concrete problems. Specifically, I conclude that reflecting on procreative obligations provides strong reasons for specifying the basic principles in ways that uncover new dimensions of them and not just new applications. _Key words: _principlism, reproductive ethics, non-identity problem, nonmaleficence, respect for persons. (shrink)

Med udgangspunkt i en case fra socialt arbejde præsenterer artiklen en "etisk læsning" af professioner og professionsudøvelse. Det gøres gældende, at visse fag og ydelser, først og fremmest de klassiske hjælpeprofessioner, er etiske i deres kerne ved at have som formål at værne om og fremme etiske grundværdier. Hvad der kvalificerer som etiske grundværdier søges belyst ud fra en aristotelisk etikforståelse. På baggrund heraf gøres der rede for, hvorfor de "tre au'er": autorisation, autonomi og autenticitet ifølge den etiske læsning er (...) fundamentale forudsætninger for etisk forsvarlig professionsudøvelse, og hvordan disse forudsætninger kommer under pres fra en form for målrationel organisationstænkning kendt som New Public Management. Om den aktuelle "etikbølge" inden for hjælpeprofessionerne er en del af problemet eller en del af løsningen, afhænger i høj grad af, hvilke begreber om profession og etik der ligger bag.Nøgleord: professionsetik, etiske grundværdier, autonomi, autenticitetEnglish summary: The Ethical Core of ProfessionsTaking a Danish case from social work as its point of departure, the article presents an “ethical reading” of professions and professional work: certain occupations and services, especially the classical helping professions, are essentially ethical by having their point and purpose in protecting and promoting core ethical values. An Aristotelian conception of ethics is offered as a qualification of what is meant by core ethical values. On this background an account is given of the reasons why the "three au's": authorization, autonomy, and authenticity are necessary conditions for ethically sound professional work and how these conditions are put under pressure by a certain end-rational organizational ideology known as New Public Management. Whether the current ethics wave in the helping professions is considered part of the problem or part of the solution depends to a large extent on which concepts of profession and ethics are invoked. (shrink)