Sentence examples for act under scrutiny from inspiring English sources

Probabilities under the act under scrutiny may decline even further in cases that involve clearer risks to health and wellbeing.

They might consider that result to support their position that wrongdoing must be grounded in facts about the agent's character, motives or intentions and not in the consequences the act under scrutiny generates for any particular person.

Thus, one suggestion has been that what makes the act under scrutiny wrong is that it violates the apparent victim's right against being brought into a flawed existence (Woodward 1986; Elliot 1989; Elliot 1997; Smolkin 1999; Velleman 2008; Cohen 2009).

According to that principle, even if the couple has the alternative of bringing the same child into a better existence – even if the existence is not unavoidably flawed – if the couple also has the alternative of not bringing the child into existence at all, the act under scrutiny cannot harm, or make things worse for, the child.

They accept, in other words, a weakened form of intuition (1), one that ties wrongdoing in a general way to what has been done to a particular person without requiring that the act under scrutiny make an existing or future person worse off or harm that person (in an intuitive, comparative sense of that term).

The idea here would be that, until we actually produce them, "we might decide not to make them the subject of any kind of moral status whatsoever" – a situation that leaves them, even if they are in fact on their way into existence, with "no moral status of any kind, not even a weak one," relative to the act under scrutiny (Heyd 1992, 99).

David Heyd holds fast to the conclusion that the acts under scrutiny are not wrong.

Only in those cases does he press the point that the acts under scrutiny are not morally wrong.

Thus Heyd is willing to say that the acts under scrutiny are not morally wrong but not to say that those same acts are morally permissible.

Some philosophers who accept that the acts under scrutiny in the standard nonidentity cases are wrong still urge that our best account of just why those acts are wrong will take a person-based form.

The argument in support of that claim is that it has been a mistake to think that the acts under scrutiny have not made things worse for the people they bring into the flawed existence (Roberts 1998 20033; 2006; 2009).