Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Journals
  3. Scottish Journal of Theology
  4. Volume 41
Journal Home
Refine listing

Refine listing

Access:
Publication date:

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×
< Back to all issues

Volume 41 - August 1988

Contents

Page 2 of 5

Research Article

  • Killing and the Principle of Double Effect*

  • A. Van Den Beld
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    02 February 2009, pp. 93-116

  • When we raise the question of whether the pleasures of the human body are as valuable as those of the human mind — whether, for example, pushpin is as good as poetry — it is quite possible that people will disagree on their answers. But we would also expect most people to agree with the assertion that the death of a human being would generally be a bad thing; whilst his continuing to live would be a good thing. Furthermore, we would expect most people to concede immediately that the death of five human beings is a worse evil than the death of one single individual: all other things being equal, I hasten to add. It seems to follow now, on the basis of this commonly held view, that saving the lives of five people, who would be doomed to a certain death without an intervention on the part of another, would be morally right, if not praiseworthy, even if the action which is necessary to save those five lives would also entail the death of another person. To liven up the proceedings, if you will pardon the expression in this context, let me put to you this specific case:

    organs distributed. In that case, there would be one dead but five saved.’

Article Review

Book Reviews

Research Article

  • Barth as Critic of Dualism: Re-reading the Römerbrief

  • W. Lowe
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    02 February 2009, pp. 377-395

  • From the time of its publication, Barth's commentary on Romans has been regarded by many as the very paradigm of theological dualism. ‘If I have a system,’ the author announces, ‘it is limited to a recognition of what Kierkegaard called the “infinite qualitative difference between time and eternity” … ’1 That distinction is succeeded by a series of others – revelation versus reason, the Gospel of God versus the ways of humankind, faith versus religion, etc. – which have the effect of ruling out of court every conceivable form of human initiative. One is left to wonder whether Barth's God serves any other function than that of a cypher for the repudiation of all that is finite or mortal.

Article Review

Review Article

Book Reviews

Article Review

Book Reviews

Book Review

Reviews

Book Reviews

Book Review

Book Reviews

Reviews

Book Reviews

Book Review

Book Reviews

Page 2 of 5