Is the argument from marginal cases obtuse
作者： DANIEL A. DOMBROWSKI
DOI: 10.1111/J.1468-5930.2006.00334.X
关键词:
摘要: abstract Elizabeth Anderson claims that the argument from marginal cases is 'the central argument'behind the claim that nonhuman animals have rights. But she thinks, along with Cora Diamond, that the argument is 'obtuse'. Two different meanings could be intended here: that the argument from marginal cases is too blunt or dull to dissect the reasons why it makes sense to say that nonhuman animals have rights or that the argument from marginal cases is insensitive regarding nonrational human beings (the marginal cases of humanity) …
philpapers.org
sci-hub.se 参考文章(8)
Mary Midgley, Stephen R. L. Clark, The Absence of a Gap Between Facts and Values Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume. ,vol. 54, pp. 207- 240 ,(1980) , 10.1093/ARISTOTELIANSUPP/54.1.207
R. G. Frey, Tom Regan, Mary Midgley, Rights, Killing and Suffering ,(1984)
James Rachels, Created from Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism ,(1990)
Holmes Rolston, Environmental Ethics: Duties to and Values in the Natural World ,(1987)
Daniel Dombrowski, , The Replaceability Argument Process studies. ,vol. 30, pp. 22- 35 ,(2001) , 10.5840/PROCESS200130112
Tom Regan, An Examination and defense of one Argument concerning Animal rights Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines. ,vol. 22, pp. 189- 219 ,(1979) , 10.1080/00201747908601872
Tom Regan, Fox's Critique of Animal Liberation Ethics. ,vol. 88, pp. 126- 133 ,(1978) , 10.1086/292063
Leslie Pickering Francis, Richard Norman, Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others Philosophy. ,vol. 53, pp. 507- 527 ,(1978) , 10.1017/S0031819100026358