Utopias and the art of the possible.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Neither compatibility with the Enlightenment view nor Poore's friendly amendment confer advantages that MacIntyre's theory does not have with respect to the moral status of severely disabled people.
“Though some (Morgan 2008, 168¬-75;Chappell 2008, 200-202) have argued that MacIntyre's account might be compatible with something like the Enlightenment view, I hope to have shown that neither this nor Poore's friendly amendment confer advantages that MacIntyre's theory does not have with respect to the moral status of severely disabled people.”
From Can a MacIntyrian Care about Severely Disabled Strangers? (2022) · cites this paper as Chappell 2008, 200-202
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Can a MacIntyrian Care about Severely Disabled Strangers?
McCracken, G. (2022) · The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine · doi:10.1093/jmp/jhac029
- Authors
- Chappell, T.
- Corresponding author
- Chappell, Timothy
- Venue
- Revolutionary Aristotelianism
- Publisher
- De Gruyter
- Published
- 2008-12-31
- Pages
- 179-204
- OpenAlex
- W4252783629
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2022: 1 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- De Gruyter eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Utopian, Dystopian, and Speculative Fiction
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Legal and Social Philosophy
- Social Sciences › Education › Critical Theory and Political Philosophy
- Keywords
- utopia, utopianism, speculative fiction
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
