Overview

Full Product Details

9780268032678

Table of Contents

Reviews

Examining the legal debates surrounding Oregon's Death with Dignity Act, [Jones] argues that liberal theorists such as Ronald Dworkin, whom he otherwise admires, are wrong to weigh in on the side of physician-assisted suicide. The cause of their error, he argues, is a failure to recognize the cultural biases that help socially determine suicide choices. This failure is connected with a failure to fully articulate the commitment to egalitarianism suggested by Dworkin's own conception of 'equality of resources.' -- SciTech Book News , September 1, 2007 Focuses on the writings of Ronald Dworkin and John Rawls in a critique of liberal egalitarian philosophers' support for physician-assisted suicide; argues that liberal philosophers should oppose the practice, at least until access to health care is assured for all. -- The Chronicle of Higher Education In this engrossing study of debates over physician-assisted suicide, Jones has issued a challenge to liberals. The old idea that liberalism is morally neutral and culturally unbiased will have to be discarded. But in doing so, liberals just may find allies among religious and other voices fighting for equality. Amy Sullivan, The Washington Monthly Examining the legal debates surrounding Oregon's Death with Dignity Act, [Jones] argues that liberal theorists such as Ronald Dworkin, whom he otherwise admires, are wrong to weigh in on the side of physician-assisted suicide. The cause of their error, he argues, is a failure to recognize the cultural biases that help socially determine suicide choices. This failure is connected with a failure to fully articulate the commitment to egalitarianism suggested by Dworkin's own conception of 'equality of resources.' SciTech Book News, September 1, 2007 Focuses on the writings of Ronald Dworkin and John Rawls in a critique of liberal egalitarian philosophers support for physician-assisted suicide; argues that liberal philosophers should oppose the practice, at least until access to health care is assured for all. The Chronicle of Higher Education

Examining the legal debates surrounding Oregon's Death with Dignity Act, [Jones] argues that liberal theorists such as Ronald Dworkin, whom he otherwise admires, are wrong to weigh in on the side of physician-assisted suicide. The cause of their error, he argues, is a failure to recognize the cultural biases that help socially determine suicide choices. This failure is connected with a failure to fully articulate the commitment to egalitarianism suggested by Dworkin's own conception of 'equality of resources.' SciTech Book News, September 1, 2007 Focuses on the writings of Ronald Dworkin and John Rawls in a critique of liberal egalitarian philosophers support for physician-assisted suicide; argues that liberal philosophers should oppose the practice, at least until access to health care is assured for all. The Chronicle of Higher Education Examining the legal debates surrounding Oregon's Death with Dignity Act, [Jones] argues that liberal theorists such as Ronald Dworkin, whom he otherwise admires, are wrong to weigh in on the side of physician-assisted suicide. The cause of their error, he argues, is a failure to recognize the cultural biases that help socially determine suicide choices. This failure is connected with a failure to fully articulate the commitment to egalitarianism suggested by Dworkin's own conception of 'equality of resources.' --SciTech Book News, September 1, 2007 In this engrossing study of debates over physician-assisted suicide, Jones has issued a challenge to liberals. The old idea that liberalism is morally neutral and culturally unbiased will have to be discarded. But in doing so, liberals just may find allies among religious and other voices fighting for equality. --Amy Sullivan, The Washington Monthly Focuses on the writings of Ronald Dworkin and John Rawls in a critique of liberal egalitarian philosophers' support for physician-assisted suicide; argues that liberal philosophers should oppose the practice, at least until access to health care is assured for all. --The Chronicle of Higher Education Examining the legal debates surrounding Oregon's Death with Dignity Act, [Jones] argues that liberal theorists such as Ronald Dworkin, whom he otherwise admires, are wrong to weigh in on the side of physician-assisted suicide. The cause of their error, he argues, is a failure to recognize the cultural biases that help socially determine suicide choices. This failure is connected with a failure to fully articulate the commitment to egalitarianism suggested by Dworkin's own conception of 'equality of resources.' --SciTech Book News, September 1, 2007 In this engrossing study of debates over physician-assisted suicide, Jones has issued a challenge to liberals. The old idea that liberalism is morally neutral and culturally unbiased will have to be discarded. But in doing so, liberals just may find allies among religious and other voices fighting for equality. --Amy Sullivan, The Washington Monthly

Focuses on the writings of Ronald Dworkin and John Rawls in a critique of liberal egalitarian philosophers' support for physician-assisted suicide; argues that liberal philosophers should oppose the practice, at least until access to health care is assured for all. -- The Chronicle of Higher Education

Examining the legal debates surrounding Oregon's Death with Dignity Act, [Jones] argues that liberal theorists such as Ronald Dworkin, whom he otherwise admires, are wrong to weigh in on the side of physician-assisted suicide. The cause of their error, he argues, is a failure to recognize the cultural biases that help socially determine suicide choices. This failure is connected with a failure to fully articulate the commitment to egalitarianism suggested by Dworkin's own conception of 'equality of resources.' --SciTech Book News, September 1, 2007 In this engrossing study of debates over physician-assisted suicide, Jones has issued a challenge to liberals. The old idea that liberalism is morally neutral and culturally unbiased will have to be discarded. But in doing so, liberals just may find allies among religious and other voices fighting for equality. --Amy Sullivan, The Washington Monthly

In this engrossing study of debates over physician-assisted suicide, Jones has issued a challenge to liberals. The old idea that liberalism is morally neutral and culturally unbiased will have to be discarded. But in doing so, liberals just may find allies among religious and other voices fighting for equality. -Amy Sullivan, The Washington Monthly Examining the legal debates surrounding Oregon's Death with Dignity Act, [Jones] argues that liberal theorists such as Ronald Dworkin, whom he otherwise admires, are wrong to weigh in on the side of physician-assisted suicide. The cause of their error, he argues, is a failure to recognize the cultural biases that help socially determine suicide choices. This failure is connected with a failure to fully articulate the commitment to egalitarianism suggested by Dworkin's own conception of 'equality of resources.' -SciTech Book News Focuses on the writings of Ronald Dworkin and John Rawls in a critique of liberal egalitarian philosophers' support for physician-assisted suicide; argues that liberal philosophers should oppose the practice, at least until access to health care is assured for all. -The Chronicle of Higher Education Liberalism's Troubled Search for Equality is the most sophisticated analysis I have read that gives a social and philosophical context to the Oregon debate on assisted death. Jones's meaningful discussion of moral values in liberal political philosophy incorporates strong scholarship and an impressive use of interviews and ethnography. -Courtney S. Campbell, Oregon State University A fresh, challenging, and timely approach to the political intersections of religion and progressive politics. Cutting through the headlines on the contentious physician assisted suicide issue, Jones's intellectually rigorous focus on equality and justice as the key to shaping an authentic liberal response will have great appeal across political and religious lines. His approach offers precisely the right prescription for a stronger progressive movement. -Rabbi David Saperstein, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism

Author Information

Robert P. Jones is director and senior fellow at the Center for American Values in Public Life, People for the American Way Foundation.

Tab Content 6

Customer Reviews

Recent Reviews

Countries Available