05653oam 2200781I 450 991046229760332120200520144314.01-283-70926-00-203-10642-31-136-25776-410.4324/9780203106426 (CKB)2670000000269523(EBL)1047200(OCoLC)818114871(SSID)ssj0000757767(PQKBManifestationID)11437609(PQKBTitleCode)TC0000757767(PQKBWorkID)10772003(PQKB)10532875(MiAaPQ)EBC1047200(Au-PeEL)EBL1047200(CaPaEBR)ebr10617663(CaONFJC)MIL402176(OCoLC)874447378(EXLCZ)99267000000026952320180706d2012 uy 0engur|n|---|||||txtccrDeath, posthumous harm, and bioethics /James Stacey TaylorNew York :Routledge,2012.1 online resource (243 p.)Routledge annals of bioethics ;12Routledge annals of bioethics ;12Description based upon print version of record.1-138-89157-6 0-415-51884-9 Includes bibliographical references (p. 205-221) and index.Cover; Title; Copyright; Dedication; Contents; Acknowledgments; Introduction: Death Unterrible; Full-blooded Epicureanism and Contemporary Bioethics; A Note on Methodology; Outline of this Volume; 1 Posthumous Harm and Interest-based Accounts of Well-being; The Intuitive Case for Posthumous Harm; The Anti-Hedonistic Intuition; Wronging the Dead; The Feinberg-Pitcher Argument for Posthumous Harm; Assessing the Argument for Posthumous Harm; Accommodating Orphaned Intuitions; Accommodating Feinberg's and Parfit's Anti-Hedonistic Intuitions; Can the Dead be Wronged?Portmore, Posthumous Harm, and the Desire Theory of WelfareConclusion; 2 Further Criticisms of the Possibility of Posthumous Harm; Levenbook's Account of Harm as Loss; Levenbook's Argument; Criticisms of Levenbook's Argument; Grover's Quality of Life Arguments; Grover's Argument; Criticisms of Grover's Argument; Sperling's Human Subject Account; Sperling's Argument; Criticisms of Sperling's Argument; Harm and Implication in Evil; Conclusion; 3 The Impossibility of Posthumous Harm; Death, Goods, and the Extinction of Desires; Responding to Luper; Towards Hedonism; Objects and CausesConclusion4 Can the Dead Be Wronged?; Desert and Injustice; Blustein and the "Dear Departed"; Responses to Blustein's Arguments; Response to the Rescue from Insignificance Argument; Response to the Enduring Duties Argument; Response to the Reciprocity Argument; Rights and Interests; Conclusion; 5 Why Death Is Not a Harm to the One Who Dies; The Epicurean Argument; Hedonism Revisited; Death and Deprivation; Does a Person's Death Deprive Her of the Goods of Life?; Responses to these Deprivation-based Arguments for the Harm of Death; The Existence Variant and Presentism Defended; Conclusion6 Fearless SymmetryLucretian Arguments; Challenges to the Lucretian Symmetry Argument; Responses to Nagel's Objection; Stoic fate; Hetherington's Symmetry Arguments; Earlier Birth and Personal Identity; Kaufman's Defense of Nagel's Argument; Responses to Kaufman; Responses to the Other Criticisms of this Lucretian Argument; The Backfire Problem; Feldman's Objection; Parfit's Hospital Example; Conclusion; 7 Epicureanism, Suicide, and Euthanasia; McMahan's Reconciliation Strategy; An Epicurean Approach to Suicide and Euthanasia; Suicide; Euthanasia; Conclusion8 Epicureanism and Organ ProcurementEpicureanism and Policies of Presumed Consent; Presumed Consent and the "Fewer Mistakes" Arguments; Autonomy-based "Fewer Mistakes" Arguments; Gill's Arguments; Why Gill's Argument against the Qualitative "Fewer Mistakes" Argument Fails; Objections to Gill's Quantitative Autonomy-based "Fewer Mistakes" Argument; The "Fewer Mistakes" Arguments and Violations of Autonomy; Presumed Consent and Respect for Autonomy; From Presumed Consent to Organ Taking; The Standard Pro-Taking Argument; Two Unjustified Assumptions-Moving Towards MarketsThe Ownership of OrgansDeath, Posthumous Harm, and Bioethics offers a highly distinctive and original approach to the metaphysics of death and applies this approach to contemporary debates in bioethics that address end-of-life and post-mortem issues. Taylor defends the controversial Epicurean view that death is not a harm to the person who dies and the neo-Epicurean thesis that persons cannot be affected by events that occur after their deaths, and hence that posthumous harms (and benefits) are impossible. He then extends this argument by asserting that the dead cannot be wronged, finally presenting a deRoutledge Annals of BioethicsDeathDeathMoral and ethical aspectsRespect for personsDeadBioethicsElectronic books.Death.DeathMoral and ethical aspects.Respect for persons.Dead.Bioethics.128/.5Taylor James Stacey1970-,948516MiAaPQMiAaPQMiAaPQBOOK9910462297603321Death, posthumous harm, and bioethics2144093UNINA04097 am 2200841 n 450 991051040550332120210930979-1-03-510695-910.4000/books.psorbonne.88637(CKB)4100000012155482(FrMaCLE)OB-psorbonne-88637(oapen)https://directory.doabooks.org/handle/20.500.12854/85804(PPN)267971397(EXLCZ)99410000001215548220211129j|||||||| ||| 0freuu||||||m||||txtrdacontentcrdamediacrrdacarrierLa voix au Moyen Âge Le Congrès de la SHMESP (Francfort, 2019) /Paris Éditions de la Sorbonne20211 online resource (384 p.) Histoire ancienne et médiévale979-1-03-510591-4 Malgré les progrès constants de l’écrit, les sociétés latines, byzantines ou musulmanes du Moyen Âge restent très largement dominées par l’oral et les sons. La voix tient un rôle primordial au sein d’un paysage sonore dont l’étude a récemment bénéficié d’un regain historiographique et du croisement interdisciplinaire avec l’anthropologie, la musicologie, l’archéologie, l’architecture, l’art ou la littérature. Le 50e congrès de la Société des historiens médiévistes de l’Enseignement supérieur public a ainsi voulu mieux comprendre la production, les usages, la définition et les contextes d’emploi de la voix, plongée dans des configurations engageant autant la parole, le discours, la déclamation que le chant ou, à l’inverse, le silence ou la voix intériorisée. Les contributions s’intéressent à la présence et aux marques d’oralité dans l’écrit, à la musique et à sa « fabrique », aux paysages sonores, aux cris et émotions, aux rythmes, à la scansion et à la cantillation…, bref à tous les contextes et prétextes qui produisent la voix, l’accompagnent ou la mettent en scène, et à ce qui est reproduit, proféré, clamé ou tu par elle. Vingt ans après la rencontre de Göttingen, le congrès de Francfort rappelle également l’importance des échanges universitaires et historiographiques franco-allemands dans une ville profondément européenne et au riche passé historique.Voix au Moyen Âge HistoryMedieval & Renaissance StudiesvoixparolechantMoyen ÂgevoixparolechantMoyen ÂgeHistoryMedieval & Renaissance StudiesvoixparolechantMoyen ÂgeAcquier Océane1296003Anheim Étienne1282520Bill Alexandra1296004Caby Cécile413277Carrier Nicolas995519Chandelier Joël1296005Clouzot Martine1296006Collard Franck1284494Depreux Philippe1293646De Morrée Cécile1296007Drocourt Nicolas1282453Giraud Cédric608968Grélois Alexis423056Haemers Jelle1296008Helmrath Johannes1296009Henkel Nikolaus222728Lecuppre-Desjardin Élodie327437Louviot Manon1296010Morsel Joseph1284491Oschema Klaus1296011Rillon-Marne Anne-Zoé786052Schmitt Jean-Claude33807Valérian Dominique598433Vermander Pierre1296012Société des historiens médiévistes de l’Enseignement supérieur public1296013FR-FrMaCLEBOOK9910510405503321La voix au Moyen Âge3023758UNINA