David Oderberg

Professor David S. Oderberg (born 1963) is an Australian philosopher and ethicist based in Britain since 1987. He is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Reading.[1] He describes himself as a non-consequentialist or a traditionalist in his works.[2] Broadly speaking, Oderberg places himself in opposition to Peter Singer and other utilitarian or consequentialist thinkers. He has published over thirty academic papers and has authored four books, Real Essentialism, Applied Ethics, Moral Theory, and The Metaphysics of Identity over Time. Professor Oderberg is an alumnus of the Universities of Melbourne, where he completed his first degrees, and Oxford where he gained his D.Phil.[1]

He was appointed editor of Ratio, the philosophical quarterly, in late 2012.

Applied Ethics

Applied Ethics, which was first published in 2000, has become one of the most important of Oderberg's works.[3] Oderberg applies his traditionalist viewpoint to some controversial ethical issues: abortion, euthanasia, animal rights, capital punishment and the Just War.[4] In Oderberg's opinion, abortion is morally wrong because the fetus is an innocent life, and taking an innocent life is morally wrong.[5] This is in contrast to Peter Singer's view that, as a fetus essentially does not merit being called a person, the termination of a pregnancy cannot be compared to the killing of an innocent human being.[6] More controversially, Oderberg compares backstreet abortion to contract killing, arguing that the state has no more right to legalize and regulate abortion on the ground that this would take it out of the 'back street' than it does to legalize and regulate contract killing on the same ground. On the subject of euthanasia, he argues that the practise is immoral, because, like abortion, it involves the intentional killing of an innocent human being. Voluntary euthanasia is no more justifiable that involuntary, since a person has no absolute right to do whatever they want with their body. Furthermore, he believes the current scientific definition of brain death is unsatisfactory both on metaphysical grounds and from an ethical point of view.[7] Oderberg's position on Animal Rights is essentially that of Aquinas – animals do not have rights because they are not moral agents. On the death penalty, Oderberg supports the state's right to enforce capital punishment, because justice must be retributive and death, being the worst punishment, is the suitable punishment for the worst crime – e.g. murder. Oderberg supports just war theory, and believes that civilians who do not contribute to the war effort should not be targeted. In virtue of this, he regards the use of atomic warfare in World War II to have been a seriously immoral act.

References

This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.