Carruthers and the argument from marginal cases

Journal of Applied Philosophy

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 135-147

  Wilson, Scott ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84978061828     PISSN: 02643758     EISSN: 14685930     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1468-5930.00181     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. CARRUTHERS, P. (1992) The Animals Issue (New York, Cambridge University Press), p. xi.
2. DOMBROWSKI, D. (1997) Babies and Beasts: The argument from marginal cases (Chicago, The University of Illinois Press).
3. Frey, R. (1980) Interests and Rights: The case against animals (Oxford, The Clarendon Press), chapter III.
4. WARREN, M. (1997) Moral Status (Oxford, Clarendon Press), p. 3.
5. DEGRAZIA, D. (1996) Taking Animals Seriously: Mental life and moral status (New York, Cambridge University Press).
6. Carruthers, P. (1992), p. 36.
7. Singer, P. (1990) Animal Liberation, New Revised Edition (New York, Avon Books)
8. Singer, P. (1994) Practical Ethics, Second Edition (New York, Cambridge University Press).
9. Regan, T. (1983) The Case for Animal Rights (Los Angeles, The University of California Press)
10. Regan, T. (1982) All That Dwell Therein: Animal rights and environmental ethics (Los Angeles, The University of California Press).
11. CARRUTHERS, P. (1992), chapter 1. He uses an account that is largely borrowed from Rawls.
12. Rwls, J. (1951) Outline for a decision procedure in ethics, Philosophical Review 60, pp. 177-197.
13. RAWLS, J. (1971) A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press).
14. SCANLON, T. (1982) Contractualism and utilitarianism in Sen and Williams (eds.) Utilitarianism and Beyond (New York, Cambridge University Press), pp. 103-128.
15. Carruthers, P. (1992), pp. 114-117.
16. DeGrazia, D. (1994), takes up this line of response.
17. Carruthers, P. (1992), chapter 5.
18. HARE, R., Moral Thinking: Its levels, method, and point (New York, Oxford University Press, 1981), part I.
19. Carruthers, P. (1992), p. 157.
20. Carruthers, P. (1992), pp. 153-154.
21. Carruthers, P. (1992), chapter 8
22. Carruthers, P. (1989) Brute experience, The Journal of Philosophy 96, pp. 258-269.
23. Carruthers, P. (1992), p. 154.
24. Kant, I. (1964) Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, H. J. Paton (trans.), (San Francisco, Harper Torchbooks), pp. 90-91.
25. KORSGAARD, C. (1996) Kant’s Formula of Universal Law, in Korsgaard, Creating the Kingdom of Ends (New York, Cambridge University Press), pp. 77-105
26. KORSGAARD, C. Kant’s analysis of obligation: the argument of Groundzcork I, in Korsgaard, C. (1996), pp. 43-76.
27. MIDGLEY, M. (1983) Animals and Why They Matter (Athens, GA, The University of Georgia Press), pp. 28-32.
28. Midgley, M. (1983).
29. Carruthers, P. (1992), pp. 158-161.
30. RICHARD HOLTON and RaE LANGTON, Empathy and animal ethics, in Jamieson, D. (ed.) (1999) Singer and His Critics (Malden, Ma:, Blackwell Publishers), pp. 209-232.
31. Kant, I., Duties in regard to animals, in Regan and Singer (eds.) (1989) Animal Rights and Human Obligations (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall), p. 24.