David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Environmental Values 18 (1):51-66 (2009)
Rationality (or something similar) is usually given as the relevant difference between all humans and animals; the reason humans do but animals do not deserve moral consideration. But according to the Argument from Marginal Cases not all humans are rational, yet if such (marginal) humans are morally considerable despite lacking rationality it would be arbitrary to deny animals with similar capacities a similar level of moral consideration. The slippery slope objection has it that although marginal humans are not strictly speaking morally considerable, we should give them moral consideration because if we do not we will slide down a slippery slope where we end up by not giving normal humans due consideration. I argue that this objection fails to show that marginal humans have the kind of direct moral status proponents of the slippery slope argument have in mind
|Keywords||Rationality Moral standing Humans Animals The Argument from Marginal Cases the Slippery Slope Objection|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Julia Tanner (2011). Rowlands, Rawlsian Justice and Animal Experimentation. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 14 (5):569-587.
Julia Tanner (2013). Contractarianism and Secondary Direct Moral Standing for Marginal Humans and Animals. Res Publica 19 (2):1-16.
Stijn Bruers (2013). Speciesism as a Moral Heuristic. Philosophia 41 (2):489-501.
Similar books and articles
Michael J. Wreen (2004). The Standing is Slippery. Philosophy 79 (4):553-572.
Julia Tanner (2011). The Argument From Marginal Cases: Is Species a Relevant Difference. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 11 (32):225-235.
Julia Tanner (2006). Marginal Humans, The Argument From Kinds, And The Similarity Argument. Facta Universitatis 5 (1):47-63.
Douglas N. Walton (1992). Slippery Slope Arguments. Oxford University Press.
Jonathan Hughes (2000). Consequentialism and the Slippery Slope: A Response to Clark. Journal of Applied Philosophy 17 (2):213–220.
Thomas Douglas (2010). Intertemporal Disagreement and Empirical Slippery Slope Arguments. Utilitas 22 (2):184-197.
Hugh LaFollette (2005). Living on a Slippery Slope. Journal of Ethics 9 (3-4):475 - 499.
Jeanne Salmon Freeman (1996). Arguing Along the Slippery Slope of Human Embryo Research. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 21 (1):61-81.
Julia Tanner (2011). Moral Status of Animals From Marginal Cases. In Michael Bruce Steven Barbone (ed.), Just the Arguments: 100 of the Most Important Arguments in Western Philosophy. Wiley-Blackwell.
David Resnik (1994). Debunking the Slippery Slope Argument Against Human Germ-Line Gene Therapy. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 19 (1):23-40.
Added to index2009-11-08
Total downloads89 ( #16,068 of 1,140,113 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #62,159 of 1,140,113 )
How can I increase my downloads?