File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

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

TitleAmoralist Rationalism? A Response to Joel Marks: Commentary on “Animal Abolitionism Meets Moral Abolitionism: Cutting the Gordian Knot of Applied Ethics” by Joel Marks
Authors
KeywordsAmoralism
Ethical theory
Rationality
Vivisection
Issue Date1-Jul-2014
PublisherSpringer
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 Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/356903
ISSN
2023 Impact Factor: 1.8
2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.685
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLederman, Zohar-
dc.date.accessioned2025-06-23T08:52:16Z-
dc.date.available2025-06-23T08:52:16Z-
dc.date.issued2014-07-01-
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Bioethical Inquiry, 2014, v. 11, n. 2, p. 115-116-
dc.identifier.issn1176-7529-
dc.identifier.urihttp://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.languageeng-
dc.publisherSpringer-
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Bioethical Inquiry-
dc.rightsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.-
dc.subjectAmoralism-
dc.subjectEthical theory-
dc.subjectRationality-
dc.subjectVivisection-
dc.titleAmoralist Rationalism? A Response to Joel Marks: Commentary on “Animal Abolitionism Meets Moral Abolitionism: Cutting the Gordian Knot of Applied Ethics” by Joel Marks-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s11673-014-9515-6-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-84957441439-
dc.identifier.volume11-
dc.identifier.issue2-
dc.identifier.spage115-
dc.identifier.epage116-
dc.identifier.eissn1872-4353-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000338228000003-
dc.identifier.issnl1176-7529-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats