Argument from marginal cases
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Argument from Marginal Cases is a philosophical position regarding the moral status of animals. Its proponents hold that if animals do not have direct moral status due to their lack of rationality, then neither do other members of society such infants, the senile, and the cognitively disabled.
Contents |
[edit] Proponents
In recent times it has been famously put forward by Peter Singer however Daniel Dombrowski claims it can be traced back to Porphyry in the third century CE.
[edit] Criticism
The common counterargument is The Argument from Species Normality coined by David Graham and proposed by Tibor Machan in his book Putting Humans First: Why We Are Nature's Favorite.
A counterargument of The Argument from Species Normality is presented by James Rachels as a reductio ad absurdum and could be called The Argument from Special Chimp.
[edit] See also
[edit] External links
 |
This ethics-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
 |
This animal rights-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
