Yes, I have managed a little reading of late. At bedtime, I've been going through P.D. James'
Devices and Desiresdata:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2d1c1/2d1c124c8fe7f4cdbe19b81b7ec854e235796018" alt=""
. Murder mysteries are a favourite of mine, but she raises the genre to the level of serious literature. I've borrowed
The Children of Mendata:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2d1c1/2d1c124c8fe7f4cdbe19b81b7ec854e235796018" alt=""
for my next read.
And over the weekend, I read John Finnis'
Fundamentals of Ethicsdata:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2d1c1/2d1c124c8fe7f4cdbe19b81b7ec854e235796018" alt=""
. It's a bit of a slog for a quick read, but I need a more sophisticated conceptual vocabulary. One of the possible questions on the mid-term involved constructing an argument about whether or not voluntary active euthanasia should be legal. It took quite a bit of thinking to come up with an argument (nine premises and a final conclusion) that seemed doable. I was planning to go against the Professor's recommended strategy: liberty of the individual takes precedence, so use a
slippery slope argument if you oppose the legality of euthanasia.
Since he left open the possibility that Virtue Theory
might have an argument against euthanasia, I tried reconstructing the argument, based loosely on what I read
here. In a way, it's too bad that question didn't come up. I put so much effort into it. On the other hand, it was long and involved. And I barely finished the exam on time as it was.
C'est la guerre.
No comments:
Post a Comment