Babies and Beasts
The Argument from Marginal Cases
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."
"Dombrowski's excellent book provides a clear, readable account of the debate that touches all the bases. His critical assessments are always sensible and his own view could become an important option in the field." -- James Rachels, author of Created from Animals: The Moral Implication of Darwinism
To order online:
http://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/catalog/76gta8ha9780252066382.html
To order by phone:
(800) 621-2736 (USA/Canada)
(773) 702-7000 (International)
Related Titles
Edited by Robert B. Talisse
Edited by Jeffrey Tlumak
Edited by Paul Moser
Edited by Michael Raposa
Edited by Andrew Linzey
Edited by Andrew Linzey and Priscilla N. Cohn
Edited by Roger Ward