On stopping at everything: A reply to W. M. hunt

Environmental Ethics 2 (3):281-284 (1980)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Contrary to W. Murray Hunt’s suggestion, living things deserve moral consideration and inanimate objects do not precisely because living things can intelligibly be said to have interests (and inanimate objects cannot intelligibly said to have interests). Interests are crucial because the concept of morality is noncontingently related to beneficence or nonmaleficence, notions which misfire completely in theabsence of entities capable of being benefited or harmed

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,322

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Are mere things morally considerable?W. Murray Hunt - 1980 - Environmental Ethics 2 (1):59-65.
Two Arguments against Biological Interests.Aaron Simmons - 2010 - Environmental Ethics 32 (3):229-245.
Machines, Sentience, and the Scope of Morality.Frederik Kaufman - 1994 - Environmental Ethics 16 (1):57-70.
The Stag Hunt.Brian Skyrms - 2001 - Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 75 (2):31 - 41.
For the Sake of a Stone? Inanimate Things and the Demands of Morality.Simon P. James - 2011 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 54 (4):384-397.
To Swat or Not to Swat.Mark A. Michael - 1996 - Environmental Ethics 18 (2):165-180.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
23 (#658,616)

6 months
4 (#797,377)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Kenneth E. Goodpaster
University of St. Thomas, Minnesota

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references