Abstract
In his reply to my article in the preceding issue of Bioethics [3], Richard Hare [2] makes some valuable distinctions, which ease the task of pinpointing the differences between us. But let me stress that these differences are largely theoretical ones. On most issues of practical policy, I suspect that he and I would find ourselves broadly in agreement, as far as our conclusions were concerned. And although our arguments would differ somewhat, I would certainly attach substantial weight to most of the considerations that he mentions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Bibliography
Hare, R. M.: 1976, ‘Survival of the Weakest’, in S. Gorovitz (ed.), Moral Problems in Medicine Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 364–369.
Hare, R. M.: 1988, ‘When Does Potentiality Count? A Comment on Michael Lockwood’s Paper’, Bioethlcs 2, 214–226.
Lockwood, M.: 1988, ‘Warnock versus Powell (and Harradine): When Does Potentiality Count?’, Bioethics 2, 187–213.
Mill. J.S.: 1969, Utilitarianism (first published 1861), in James M. Smith and Ernest Sosa (eds). Mill’s Utilitarianism, Wadsworth, Belmont CA, pp. 31–88.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1997 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lockwood, M. (1997). Hare on Potentiality: A Rejoinder. In: Fotion, N., Heller, J.C. (eds) Contingent Future Persons. Theology and Medicine, vol 9. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5566-3_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5566-3_3
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-6345-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-5566-3
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive