File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1007/s11673-014-9515-6
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-84957441439
- WOS: WOS:000338228000003
- Find via

Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Amoralist Rationalism? A Response to Joel Marks: Commentary on “Animal Abolitionism Meets Moral Abolitionism: Cutting the Gordian Knot of Applied Ethics” by Joel Marks
| Title | Amoralist Rationalism? A Response to Joel Marks: Commentary on “Animal Abolitionism Meets Moral Abolitionism: Cutting the Gordian Knot of Applied Ethics” by Joel Marks |
|---|---|
| Authors | |
| Keywords | Amoralism Ethical theory Rationality Vivisection |
| Issue Date | 1-Jul-2014 |
| Publisher | Springer |
| Citation | Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 2014, v. 11, n. 2, p. 115-116 How to Cite? |
| Abstract | n a recent article, Joel Marks presents the amoralist argument against vivisection, or animal laboratory experimentation. He argues that ethical theories that seek to uncover some universal morality are in fact useless and unnecessary for ethical deliberations meant to determine what constitutes an appropriate action in a specific circumstance. I agree with Marks’ conclusion. I too believe that vivisection is indefensible, both from a scientific and philosophical perspective. I also believe that we should become vegan (unfortunately, like the two philosophers mentioned by Marks, I too am still struggling to reduce my meat and dairy consumption). However, I am in the dark as to Marks’ vision of normative deliberations in the spirit of amoralism and desirism . |
| Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/356903 |
| ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 1.8 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.685 |
| ISI Accession Number ID |
| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.author | Lederman, Zohar | - |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2025-06-23T08:52:16Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2025-06-23T08:52:16Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2014-07-01 | - |
| dc.identifier.citation | Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 2014, v. 11, n. 2, p. 115-116 | - |
| dc.identifier.issn | 1176-7529 | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/356903 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | <p> <span>n a recent article, Joel Marks presents the amoralist argument against vivisection, or animal laboratory experimentation. He argues that ethical theories that seek to uncover some universal morality are in fact useless and unnecessary for ethical deliberations meant to determine what constitutes an appropriate action in a specific circumstance. I agree with Marks’ conclusion. I too believe that vivisection is indefensible, both from a scientific and philosophical perspective. I also believe that we should become vegan (unfortunately, like the two philosophers mentioned by Marks, I too am still struggling to reduce my meat and dairy consumption). However, I am in the dark as to Marks’ vision of normative deliberations in the spirit of amoralism and desirism</span> .<br></p> | - |
| dc.language | eng | - |
| dc.publisher | Springer | - |
| dc.relation.ispartof | Journal of Bioethical Inquiry | - |
| dc.rights | This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. | - |
| dc.subject | Amoralism | - |
| dc.subject | Ethical theory | - |
| dc.subject | Rationality | - |
| dc.subject | Vivisection | - |
| dc.title | Amoralist Rationalism? A Response to Joel Marks: Commentary on “Animal Abolitionism Meets Moral Abolitionism: Cutting the Gordian Knot of Applied Ethics” by Joel Marks | - |
| dc.type | Article | - |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.1007/s11673-014-9515-6 | - |
| dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-84957441439 | - |
| dc.identifier.volume | 11 | - |
| dc.identifier.issue | 2 | - |
| dc.identifier.spage | 115 | - |
| dc.identifier.epage | 116 | - |
| dc.identifier.eissn | 1872-4353 | - |
| dc.identifier.isi | WOS:000338228000003 | - |
| dc.identifier.issnl | 1176-7529 | - |
