Issue 89 - Death and Morality

Latest news of Philosophy Now

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Posts: 469
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:07 am
Location: London

Issue 89 - Death and Morality

Post by RickLewis » Wed Mar 21, 2012 12:55 pm

Issue 89 is now out. It has a theme of "Death and Morality". (Cheerful, eh?)

Some scientists now believe that one day we may learn to halt or even reverse the aging process in human beings, thus abolishing death from old age and all its related ailments. Would this be a good thing, something society should spend a fortune in research funding to achieve? In two outstanding articles Prof Nick Bostrom argues that it is our moral duty to do so but Dr Mary Midgley argues it would be a disaster. Dr Walter Ott wonders whether we can have obligations to people who have died and Alex Carley examines the logic of the euthanasia debate.

Also in this issue Howard Darmstadter disagrees with Peter Singer's famous claims that we have an almost unlimited duty to help the world's most destitute people. J'aime Wells considers some chimpanzees she knows who can use sign language, and asks what this implies for theories about language. And Tim WIlkinson considers the growing popularity of theories in physics that assume the existence of a multitude of other universes parallel to our own. We also have excellent columns by Ray Tallis and Joel Marks, and a brief profile of Bertrand Russell by Sir Alistair MacFarlane.

I really think Issue 89 is one of our liveliest and best issues for a long time. You'll love it!

The full contents page and some free articles can be found at:

To read the whole thing online you could subscribe via our online store at:

though you could also buy it in a bookshop or a news-agent, or subscribe to the Philosophy Now editions on Kindle or Zinio.

Posts: 1198
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:45 pm
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota, USA

Re: Issue 89 - Death and Morality

Post by tbieter » Wed Mar 21, 2012 2:35 pm

Is having sexual intercourse with a dead body a moral, immoral, or amoral act? (see aol link below)

Philosophy Now wrote:
Our longtime Moral Moments columnist Joel Marks concludes his special column explaining why he’s abandoning morality. ... to_Part_II

Professor Marks, who now doesn't believe in morality or that any act is intrinsically right or wrong, certainly would not have any grounds to object to this mortician pleasuring himself with one of his clients. ... d%3D144661 The client is merely a corrupting inanimate object, without any rights.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest