Eye of the Heart: Knowing the Human Good in the Euthanasia Debate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What is the role of feelings in the euthanasia debate? This is the central question in William F. Sullivan's unique philosophical and ethical exploration of the issue, Eye of the Heart. Employing the principles and techniques of the great Canadian theologian and thinker Bernard Lonergan, Sullivan offers a concrete examination of the role of feelings in grasping moral values and the key role that feelings play in ethical decision-making. The heart has its reasons, he argues convincingly, and it is a type of reason that bioethicists, philosophers, and legal scholars all need to know. Sullivan draws on his experiences as a practicing physician to analyse the distinguishing elements of human knowing, illustrating them through common examples of decision-making in health care. He highlights the occurrence of various types of insight, particularly 'deliberative insights' that occur in the process of making value judgments. These deliberative insights are affective, and through them, a person apprehends moral values. Eye of the Heart proposes that feelings are relevant to knowing moral values and orient us towards moral self-transcendence. The implications of this stance in ethics are drawn out for the euthanasia debate.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".