Both its defenders and detractors have described the argument from marginal cases as the most important to date in defense of animal rights. Hotly debated among philosophers for some twenty years, the argument concludes that no morally relevant characteristic distinguishes human beings - including infants, the severely retarded, the comatose, and other "marginal cases" - from any other animals. Babies and Beasts presents the first book-length exploration of the broad range of views relating to the argument from marginal cases and sorts out and evaluates its various uses and abuses. Daniel Dombrowski analyzes the views of many who are prominent in the debate - Peter Singer, Thomas Regan, H. J. McCloskey, Jan Narveson, John Rawls, R. G. Frey, Peter Carruthers, Michael Leahy, Robert Nozick, and James Rachels are included - in a volume that will be essential to philosophers, animal rights activists, those who work in clinical settings, and others who must sometimes deal with "marginal cases."
| |||||||||||||||
Did you know you can trade in your old books for an Amazon.co.uk Gift Card to spend on the things you want? Visit the Books Trade-In Store for more details. Special Offer until June 30, 2013: Receive an additional £5 promotional Gift Certificate, when you trade-in at least £10 worth of books. Learn more. |
Book Description
Product details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
More About the Author
Discover books, learn about writers, and more.
Product Description
Review
"Excellent ... a clear, readable account of the debate that touches all the bases." -- James Rachels, author of Created from Animals: The Moral Implication of Darwinism
Inside This Book
(Learn More)
First Sentence
In this chapter I introduce some of the implications of the argument as developed by Peter Singer and Tom Regan, both of whom defend it. Read the first page
Front Cover | Copyright | Table of Contents | Excerpt | Index | Back Cover
In this chapter I introduce some of the implications of the argument as developed by Peter Singer and Tom Regan, both of whom defend it. Read the first page
Explore More
Concordance
Browse Sample PagesConcordance
Front Cover | Copyright | Table of Contents | Excerpt | Index | Back Cover
Sell a Digital Version of This Book in the Kindle Store
If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store.
Learn more
Customer Reviews
There are no customer reviews yet on Amazon.co.uk.
5 star
4 star
3 star
2 star
1 star
Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)
Amazon.com:
4.5 out of 5 stars
2 reviews
9 of 11 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars
Dombrowski discusses the core of a liberationist argument.
29 Dec 1998
By A Customer
- Published on Amazon.com
Format:Hardcover
Daniel Dombrowski discusses the core issues of a popular argument of animal liberationists. This book covers the most prominent philosopher's arguments for and against the argument from marginal cases. He discusses the main issues without getting into non-animal philosophical discussions--you don't have to be a utilitarian, contractualist, or any other brand to listen to his arguments. Also, while presenting his case for liberation, he avoids the dogmatism that is prevalent amongst proponents and opponents of animal liberation. This is an excellent book and I recommend it to everyone--for everybody is affected if we agree with his thesis. That is, we should stop eating, experimenting, or wearing animals.
4.0 out of 5 stars
Well argued, but repetitive
21 Mar 2013
By Cody Thomas
- Published on Amazon.com
Format:Paperback
If you're really into the animal rights debate, and this argument in particular, this book serves as a useful literature review. However, I don't recommend it if you're anything other than an enthusiast for rigorous argument.
The thing is that argument from marginal cases is an extremely tight argument, so there's really not much to be said about it. Dombrowski finds it persuasive, and discusses many different philosophers who do not, but all their replies to the argument are pretty similar and rather ad hoc. There aren't many ways to find fault in the argument, and every attempt has significant unpalatable costs. The result of this discussion is a powerful, if redundant, case for animal rights.
The thing is that argument from marginal cases is an extremely tight argument, so there's really not much to be said about it. Dombrowski finds it persuasive, and discusses many different philosophers who do not, but all their replies to the argument are pretty similar and rather ad hoc. There aren't many ways to find fault in the argument, and every attempt has significant unpalatable costs. The result of this discussion is a powerful, if redundant, case for animal rights.
›
Go to Amazon.com to see both reviews
4.5 out of 5 stars
Were these reviews helpful?
Let us know
Customer Discussions
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
Listmania!
Look for similar items by category
Feedback
- Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
- I am the Author, and I want to comment on my book.
- I am the Publisher, and I want to comment on this book.
|
