Review by Choice Review
The essays in this work could be deontologist (principled) but mostly they are anti-consequentialist. Diamond overviews consequentialism while Denyer deals with absolutes and whether anything is absolutely wrong. (This does not destroy deontology nor prove that consequentialism is right.) Scarlett and Chappell are concerned with the human animal and speciesism; Gillett and Laing consider young humans. Laing's essay is against one consequentialist, Peter Singer, and claims he is confused, perhaps deceptive; that would not violate consequentialism but the principle of truth. Clark's concern with natural integrity could be considered here. Motives appear in Garcia's study but also Simmons' concern in not destroying patient health. (Consequentialism would also consider these ideas.) Some claim that the principle of autonomy has taken dictatorial control of bioethics, a concern of Smith and Oderberg; the latter looks at voluntary euthanasia, which may not always be voluntary; i.e., consequentialism may lead to nonautonomy. For ethicists at upper-division undergraduate through professional levels. H. O. Thompson; University of Pennsylvania
Copyright American Library Association, used with permission.
Review by Choice Review
