What do you think?
Rate this book
Causing Death and Saving Lives
The moral problems of abortion, infanticide, suicide, euthanasia, capital punishment, war and other life-or-death choices.
328 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1977
48 people are currently reading
1330 people want to read
About the author
Jonathan Glover
32 books54 followersJonathan Glover (born 1941) is a British philosopher known for his studies on bioethics. He was educated in Tonbridge School, later going on to Corpus Christi College, Oxford. He was a fellow and tutor in philosophy at New College, Oxford. He currently teaches ethics at King's College London. Glover is a fellow of the Hastings Center, an independent bioethics research institution in the United States.
In Humanity: A Moral History of the Twentieth Century, published in 1999, Glover makes the case for Applied Ethics. He examines the various types of atrocity that were perpetrated in the 20th century and considers what sort of bulwarks there could be against them. He allows that religion has provided bulwarks, which are getting eroded. He identifies three types of bulwark. The two more dependable are sympathy and respect for human dignity. The less dependable third is Moral Identity: "I belong to a kind of person who would not do that sort of thing". This third is less dependable because notions of moral identity can themselves be warped, as was done by the Nazis.
In 1977 he argued that to call a fetus a human person was to stretch the term beyond its natural boundaries.
In The End of Faith, Sam Harris quotes Glover as saying: "Our entanglements with people close to us erode simple self-interest. Husbands, wives, lovers, parents, children and friends all blur the boundaries of selfish concern. Francis Bacon rightly said that people with children have given hostages to fortune. Inescapably, other forms of friendship and love hold us hostage too...Narrow self-interest is destabilized."
In 1989 the European Commission hired Glover to head a panel on embryo research in Europe.
He is married to Vivette Glover a prominent neuroscientist.
In Humanity: A Moral History of the Twentieth Century, published in 1999, Glover makes the case for Applied Ethics. He examines the various types of atrocity that were perpetrated in the 20th century and considers what sort of bulwarks there could be against them. He allows that religion has provided bulwarks, which are getting eroded. He identifies three types of bulwark. The two more dependable are sympathy and respect for human dignity. The less dependable third is Moral Identity: "I belong to a kind of person who would not do that sort of thing". This third is less dependable because notions of moral identity can themselves be warped, as was done by the Nazis.
In 1977 he argued that to call a fetus a human person was to stretch the term beyond its natural boundaries.
In The End of Faith, Sam Harris quotes Glover as saying: "Our entanglements with people close to us erode simple self-interest. Husbands, wives, lovers, parents, children and friends all blur the boundaries of selfish concern. Francis Bacon rightly said that people with children have given hostages to fortune. Inescapably, other forms of friendship and love hold us hostage too...Narrow self-interest is destabilized."
In 1989 the European Commission hired Glover to head a panel on embryo research in Europe.
He is married to Vivette Glover a prominent neuroscientist.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
May 30, 2014
n Causing Deaths and Saving Lives Jonathan Glover offers a broadly utilitarian analysis of killing. It is, however, not purely utilitarian; Glover makes room for respecting the autonomy of those who wish to go on living even if we cannot determine what it is that makes their lives worth living (perhaps, though, this grounded in some kind of rule utilitarianism). Indeed, Glover thinks that the wrongness of killing (considered apart from its side-effects on others) is explained by either the overriding of another’s autonomy or by reducing the total amount of worthwhile life that would otherwise exist if no life-thwarting action were taken. While this classic volume is easy to read, non-technical, honest, and fair, the foundational assumptions seem to me to be drastically flawed.
Consider his definition of death, which he defines as the irreversible loss of consciousness. This, he thinks avoids a problem posed by a thought experiment: imagine a man’s heart stops and a doctor is poised to revive him fully expecting to get his heart going again. But the man’s heir plunges a knife into his chest before the doctor can do anything. Does the heir violate a corpse or take the life of an innocent human being? He violates a corpse only if the death is defined by the mere cessation of pulmonary circulation. But that is not a plausible definition of death, because it leaves out the condition of irreversibility. Suppose the heir doesn’t interfere and the doctor gets the man’s heart going again, but unfortunately the man never regains consciousness. After the doctor determines that the man’s consciousness has been irreversibly lost, the man’s heir plunges the knife into the man’s chest. Does he violate a corpse or kill an innocent human being? It seems clear that he doesn’t violate a corpse; therefore he kills an innocent human being, which means the definition of death has nothing to do with the irreversible loss of consciousness.
With respect to reproductive ethics, he thinks that the actions of killing an infant and failing to conceive a child via contraception are morally on par with another. If one is wrong, then so is the other; and if one is permissible, then so is the other. (Of course, the parity disappears when we start considering the side-effects of these actions on others). This strikes me as incredible for many reasons, but one will suffice even on Glover’s utilitarian grounds. Failing to conceive is on par with infanticide only if we make two implausible assumptions: (1) reducing the total amount of worthwhile life is equivalent with failing to maximize the total amount of worthwhile life; (2) we are under an obligation to maximize the total amount of worthwhile life. A little reflection shows that there are problems with both of these, of course. Since Glover denies any morally relevant difference between acts and omissions, the first assumption entails the following generalization: for any agent S, and any quantifiable property p, S reduces p just in case S fails to maximize p. Thus, if I fail to maximize the potential profits of a company, but produce profits for it nonetheless, I have reduced the company’s profits. Conversely, I have reduced the total amount of garbage in the world, by failing to maximize the total amount of garbage I could otherwise produce. Neither of these statements make much sense of what we normally take the word ‘reduce’ to mean. To reduce something does not mean to fail to actualize the full potential of something; rather, it means to bring about less of something actual. As for the second assumption, it is hard to make sense of the harm done people who are prevented from existing. Non-existent entities do not have properties, so they cannot be harmed. Perhaps there is a creaturely essence awaiting actualization; but does the failure to actualize it harm it? I doubt it. Why, then, does Glover make these assumptions? As careful as he is to examine his assumptions throughout his interesting and provocative book, these are overlooked whoppers.
There is more confusion. Glover spends a lot of time arguing against the act-omission doctrine and the principle of double effect, and we are left with the impression that belief in these ideals is false. But he says, “moral beliefs are not in any straightforward way true or false” (pg. 111), so this noncognitivist turn seems to undercut his argument. Another example of undercutting occurs when he says it is absurd to argue for a moral position by claiming that its widespread rejection would lead to bad consequences (pg. 111), but then goes on to argue that the rejection of the ban on the use of nuclear weapons would produce terrible consequences while recognizing that conventional weapons can be used to cause more harm than nuclear weapons (e.g. he cites the now discredited belief that more people were killed in the conventional bombing of Dresden than in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima).
While Glover’s book constitutes a great example the utilitarian challenge to traditional ethics, and is good for assigning to undergraduates to sample various positions, it is not very persuasive.
Consider his definition of death, which he defines as the irreversible loss of consciousness. This, he thinks avoids a problem posed by a thought experiment: imagine a man’s heart stops and a doctor is poised to revive him fully expecting to get his heart going again. But the man’s heir plunges a knife into his chest before the doctor can do anything. Does the heir violate a corpse or take the life of an innocent human being? He violates a corpse only if the death is defined by the mere cessation of pulmonary circulation. But that is not a plausible definition of death, because it leaves out the condition of irreversibility. Suppose the heir doesn’t interfere and the doctor gets the man’s heart going again, but unfortunately the man never regains consciousness. After the doctor determines that the man’s consciousness has been irreversibly lost, the man’s heir plunges the knife into the man’s chest. Does he violate a corpse or kill an innocent human being? It seems clear that he doesn’t violate a corpse; therefore he kills an innocent human being, which means the definition of death has nothing to do with the irreversible loss of consciousness.
With respect to reproductive ethics, he thinks that the actions of killing an infant and failing to conceive a child via contraception are morally on par with another. If one is wrong, then so is the other; and if one is permissible, then so is the other. (Of course, the parity disappears when we start considering the side-effects of these actions on others). This strikes me as incredible for many reasons, but one will suffice even on Glover’s utilitarian grounds. Failing to conceive is on par with infanticide only if we make two implausible assumptions: (1) reducing the total amount of worthwhile life is equivalent with failing to maximize the total amount of worthwhile life; (2) we are under an obligation to maximize the total amount of worthwhile life. A little reflection shows that there are problems with both of these, of course. Since Glover denies any morally relevant difference between acts and omissions, the first assumption entails the following generalization: for any agent S, and any quantifiable property p, S reduces p just in case S fails to maximize p. Thus, if I fail to maximize the potential profits of a company, but produce profits for it nonetheless, I have reduced the company’s profits. Conversely, I have reduced the total amount of garbage in the world, by failing to maximize the total amount of garbage I could otherwise produce. Neither of these statements make much sense of what we normally take the word ‘reduce’ to mean. To reduce something does not mean to fail to actualize the full potential of something; rather, it means to bring about less of something actual. As for the second assumption, it is hard to make sense of the harm done people who are prevented from existing. Non-existent entities do not have properties, so they cannot be harmed. Perhaps there is a creaturely essence awaiting actualization; but does the failure to actualize it harm it? I doubt it. Why, then, does Glover make these assumptions? As careful as he is to examine his assumptions throughout his interesting and provocative book, these are overlooked whoppers.
There is more confusion. Glover spends a lot of time arguing against the act-omission doctrine and the principle of double effect, and we are left with the impression that belief in these ideals is false. But he says, “moral beliefs are not in any straightforward way true or false” (pg. 111), so this noncognitivist turn seems to undercut his argument. Another example of undercutting occurs when he says it is absurd to argue for a moral position by claiming that its widespread rejection would lead to bad consequences (pg. 111), but then goes on to argue that the rejection of the ban on the use of nuclear weapons would produce terrible consequences while recognizing that conventional weapons can be used to cause more harm than nuclear weapons (e.g. he cites the now discredited belief that more people were killed in the conventional bombing of Dresden than in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima).
While Glover’s book constitutes a great example the utilitarian challenge to traditional ethics, and is good for assigning to undergraduates to sample various positions, it is not very persuasive.
September 15, 2016
Glover is a moral philosopher with excellent credentials. This book raises the question, first, whether we can consciously and intentionally create a coherent moral philosophy about killing. In other words, is morality rational? and Is it possible to have a non-contradictory moral philosophy on this question?
Then he discusses how such a philosophy would be grounded. Like, do we object to killing on the basis of "sanctity of life"? on a sense that killing is *always* inherently wrong? on a belief that killing is wrong but can be outweighed by other principles (and if so, what would those principles be?) or on the basis of a general principle that it is better to increase happiness in the world? or on other principles?
Then he applies the question to various issues surrounding killing, ranging from: war, assassination, capital punishment, abortion, contraception, infanticide, euthanasia, suicide, you name it.
It is mind blowing. And engaging. And completely accessible. I STRONGLY recommend it. Not because he tells you what to think, not at ALL. He just describes ways of thinking and then tests them for contradictions and for utility.
And these issues are very important. It's true that most of us don't have to come face to face with many of the practical questions he raises, like for instance, I don't have to myself wonder whether I should be a conscientious objector if drafted to serve in a war. On the other hand, we all hold opinions on all of these questions, and it is good for us, as human beings, to think through all of our opinions to see where they lead and how strongly we hold them.
Then he discusses how such a philosophy would be grounded. Like, do we object to killing on the basis of "sanctity of life"? on a sense that killing is *always* inherently wrong? on a belief that killing is wrong but can be outweighed by other principles (and if so, what would those principles be?) or on the basis of a general principle that it is better to increase happiness in the world? or on other principles?
Then he applies the question to various issues surrounding killing, ranging from: war, assassination, capital punishment, abortion, contraception, infanticide, euthanasia, suicide, you name it.
It is mind blowing. And engaging. And completely accessible. I STRONGLY recommend it. Not because he tells you what to think, not at ALL. He just describes ways of thinking and then tests them for contradictions and for utility.
And these issues are very important. It's true that most of us don't have to come face to face with many of the practical questions he raises, like for instance, I don't have to myself wonder whether I should be a conscientious objector if drafted to serve in a war. On the other hand, we all hold opinions on all of these questions, and it is good for us, as human beings, to think through all of our opinions to see where they lead and how strongly we hold them.
August 20, 2012
A very clear and nicely in-depth look at some very important and difficult topics which too often are glossed over and not explored in enough detail. I particularly liked Glover's consistency, his well argued-for position and the fact that he managed to tackle these themes in a way that someone who hadn't studied much philosophy would understand, as the whole thing is remarkably jargon-free. I would say that some of the areas could have been gone into in more depth but I think the book aims for good breadth and a decent overview rather than an exhaustive inquiry into each topic. Plus the book made me think a lot and re-examine some of my own opinions and beliefs, which is much of what I ask from any philosophy book.
November 5, 2016
Causing deaths and saving lives raised a lot of topics that I found fascinating. Glover has in my opinion a utilitarian perspective. His discussion on war, abortion, capital punishment, infanticide and suicide are rational in his arguments. However, whenever has logic overcome emotional arguments.
Euthanasia and the problems it presented in regard to a persons autonomy and whether someone terminally ill opposed to someone depressed. Logically the depressed person could be treated as opposed to the terminal patient. For all the topics he presents the various arguments which does make one think. All in all an interesting book written in the 1970s and still relevant today.
Euthanasia and the problems it presented in regard to a persons autonomy and whether someone terminally ill opposed to someone depressed. Logically the depressed person could be treated as opposed to the terminal patient. For all the topics he presents the various arguments which does make one think. All in all an interesting book written in the 1970s and still relevant today.
December 30, 2024
In this book, Glover really dissects the morality of the arguments for many of the major life and death questions of our time. To me, it reads quite utilitarian, but there are definitely nuances to the reasoning.
It is quite a dense read, which took me well over a year to finish. However, I am glad that I did. Even though we might not spend a great deal of time looking to justify how we reason about things, the consequences of our decisions are massive. Consequently, opening your mind and ideas to scrutiny is something we all might benefit from in the long run, uncomfortable as it may well be.
To be fair, parts of the book felt a bit repetitive and I am not sure I agree with all of the assertions presented as logical conclusions. Nevertheless, if the goal of the book is to make you think, it sure gets the job done.
It is quite a dense read, which took me well over a year to finish. However, I am glad that I did. Even though we might not spend a great deal of time looking to justify how we reason about things, the consequences of our decisions are massive. Consequently, opening your mind and ideas to scrutiny is something we all might benefit from in the long run, uncomfortable as it may well be.
To be fair, parts of the book felt a bit repetitive and I am not sure I agree with all of the assertions presented as logical conclusions. Nevertheless, if the goal of the book is to make you think, it sure gets the job done.
August 26, 2020
Really great overview of everything mentioned in the subtitle. The early section on general guides to practical ethics left a bit to be desired, but each of the chapters should be read by those interested in the ethics of the relevant practical topic.
Read
September 8, 2025although he mentions hypothetical situations are perhaps the better way to go about explaining reasoning, it did just seem a bit a bit dependent on implausible scenarios
i did like how he discussed the straw man that is the comparison of euthanasia to nazi experiments
i did like how he discussed the straw man that is the comparison of euthanasia to nazi experiments
October 9, 2018
I picked up this book on a whim because the title seemed interesting and the brief summary on the back was even more engaging.
Causing Death and Saving Lives does applies tools of philosophy to real life problems such as abortion, infanticide, war, and suicide. The most interesting aspect of the book is that it does not push any particular point of view. The better method employed by Glover is the how he uses these pressing issues and breaks down how each side/argument attempts to deal with them, in some cases through a supposedly moral line of thought/reasoning.
What makes this work so great is the recognition that neither position is completely defensible (at least not on its own) logically and both sides rest on arguments that fail some quite simple litmus tests. The author does well to take each of these and provide not just the pros and cons of each, but to extend them in such a manner that one sees the humanity behind the argument themselves. Ultimately, as is the case with such philosophical works, the reader will make the judgment he/she deems most fitting; however, I maintain, and wish I had read this book before attending college, that this is one of the best (mainly for its simplicity) books to understand controversial issues such as infanticide, capital punishment and abortion without getting caught up in rhetoric.
Reading this book will inevitably make you see these polarizing issues through a different lens and with the hope that you can appreciate both sides of arguments with more humility and less certainty.
Causing Death and Saving Lives does applies tools of philosophy to real life problems such as abortion, infanticide, war, and suicide. The most interesting aspect of the book is that it does not push any particular point of view. The better method employed by Glover is the how he uses these pressing issues and breaks down how each side/argument attempts to deal with them, in some cases through a supposedly moral line of thought/reasoning.
What makes this work so great is the recognition that neither position is completely defensible (at least not on its own) logically and both sides rest on arguments that fail some quite simple litmus tests. The author does well to take each of these and provide not just the pros and cons of each, but to extend them in such a manner that one sees the humanity behind the argument themselves. Ultimately, as is the case with such philosophical works, the reader will make the judgment he/she deems most fitting; however, I maintain, and wish I had read this book before attending college, that this is one of the best (mainly for its simplicity) books to understand controversial issues such as infanticide, capital punishment and abortion without getting caught up in rhetoric.
Reading this book will inevitably make you see these polarizing issues through a different lens and with the hope that you can appreciate both sides of arguments with more humility and less certainty.
Read
July 28, 2011An interesting look at some of the major ethical issues facing us as a society, such as abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia and war. Although I didn't fully agree with Glover's central premise, that the most important thing is to preserve worthwhile lives, as well as his often utilitarian views, I liked seeing the way he followed them through and agreed with many of his conclusions.
September 23, 2020
Glovers ability to present different philosophies and perspectives without bias is extraordinary. His ability to critically discuss those different views without sentimentality is equally impressive. Of all the moral perspectives discussed, the work lands on the claim that this approach (seeing things from different perspectives and being willing to discuss and criticize with as much self knowledge about ones own biases as possible) should be the overriding moral philosophy.
May 31, 2025
Meh book. The main parts that stuck out to me were the abortion and infanticide ones where he argued in favor of cleansing disabled people from the gene pool. I don't know why applied ethics philosophers are so adverse to respecting the dignity and self determination of disabled people. I mean I know why, I've read some of their arguments, its just very disappointing
November 26, 2024
Difficult, yet great book about matters of live and death. Highly recommended
March 24, 2021
This poses moral problems suggested by the title in a very accessible way. I think that if someone is considering utilitarianism applied in the real world, then this is a good book to ponder at. Glover discusses instances/examples of euthanasia, war, and infanticide in a confronting manner, which differs to the touch-and-go path that some ethicists take with their hypothetical thought experiments. With such a humane approach, Causing Death and Saving Lives is almost timeless. I can't recommend it enough to someone who wants to delve deep into these issues for the first time.
May 14, 2016
A introductory review to the ethics of decisions around life and death. Written in 1977, the examples and literature cited are a bit dated but they suit the purpose. I'd even say it's better that way, so as the reader can think of cases with less emotion than if the examples were from today's news. But the examples are such that, once having considered, it is easily applied to the issues with which we are confronted with. If this had been written more recently, I imagine that "moral distance" would have been given an even greater part, with the rapid rate of globalization even since '77.
November 10, 2008
Really gets you thinking about moral issues and how to justify your views and feelings. I learned that it's not alway's easy to find reasoning for your thoughts.
July 14, 2015
A good little intro to the ethics surrounding life and death, accessible to non-philosophers.
May 26, 2014
I don't know why I never added this? I read it a while ago and found it fascinating.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews