2000Humana Press eBooksRequires access

Do We Have a Duty to Die?

Marilyn Bennett

Open publisher page 8 citations

Abstract

The claim that we might have a duty to die, particularly when we are old or very ill, seemed at first shocking and harsh. A set of hypothetical cases is examined to show that the claim is morally defensible under certain circumstances. A generic conception of moral duty is described. Two broad categories of moral reasons, those based on considerations of beneficence and those based on ideas about moral principles or virtues apart from beneficence, are studied. Both are shown to provide plausible foundations for the claim that in some situations a person has a duty to die. A summary of factors playing into the duty is given. Finally, practical difficulties that would arise from explicit recognition of the duty are examined along with theoretical complications. It is concluded that the problem, although it clearly causes discomfort, cannot be avoided. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The claim that we might have a duty to die, particularly when we are old or very ill, seemed at first shocking and harsh. A set of hypothetical cases is examined to show that the claim is morally defensible under certain circumstances. A generic conception of moral duty is described. Two broad categories of moral reasons, those based on considerations of beneficence and those based on ideas about moral principles or virtues apart from beneficence, are studied. Both are shown to provide plausible foundations for the claim that in some situations a person has a duty to die. A summary of factors playing into the duty is given. Finally, practical difficulties that would arise from explicit recognition of the duty are examined along with theoretical complications. It is concluded that the problem, although it clearly causes discomfort, cannot be avoided. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 8 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The claim that we might have a duty to die, particularly when we are old or very ill, seemed at first shocking and harsh. A set of hypothetical cases is examined to show that the claim is morally defensible under certain circumstances. A generic conception of moral duty is described. Two broad categories of moral reasons, those based on considerations of beneficence and those based on ideas about moral principles or virtues apart from beneficence, are studied. Both are shown to provide plausible foundations for the claim that in some situations a person has a duty to die. A summary of factors playing into the duty is given. Finally, practical difficulties that would arise from explicit recognition of the duty are examined along with theoretical complications. It is concluded that the problem, although it clearly causes discomfort, cannot be avoided. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Key concepts: Duty, Beneficence, Set (abstract data type), Psychology, Epistemology, Philosophy, Law, Law and economics

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Do We Have a Duty to Die? — Research Paper | ScholarLens