34 found
Sort by:
Disambiguations:
Nathan Nobis [39]N. Nobis [1]
See also:
Profile: Nathan Nobis
  1. Nathan Nobis, Rational Engagement, Emotional Response and the Prospects for Progress in Animal Use ‘Debates’.
    This paper is designed to help people rationally engage moral issues regarding the treatment of animals, specifically uses of animals in medical and psychological experimentation, basic research, drug development, education and training, consumer product testing and other areas.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Nathan Nobis, A Libertarian Replies to Tibor Machan's 'Why Animal Rights Don't Exist'.
    right. Unlike incoherent positive rights , such as the “right” to education or health care, the animal right is, at bottom, a right to be left alone . It does not call for government to tax us in order to provide animals with food, shelter, and veterinary care. It only requires us to stop killing them and making them suffer. I can think of no other issue where the libertarian is arguing for a positive right—his right to make animals submit (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Nathan Nobis, Defending Embryo Experimentation.
    In Embryo: A Defense of Human Life (Doubleday, 2008), Robert P. George and Christopher Tollefsen argue that human embryo-destructive experimentation is morally wrong and should not be supported with state funds. I argue that their arguments fail.
    No categories
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Nathan Nobis, Entry On: Singer, Peter.
    |Scope: | |1. The first sentence should include the subject’s name, life span in | |parenthesis, and place and date of birth (day and month) if known (followed by | |mentioning early work on civil disobedience, perhaps) | |2. Outline key contributions to animal ethics, focusing on Animal Liberation | |and Practical Ethics | |3. Outline contributions to debates on poverty, relating this to environmental | |ethics | |4. Outline more recent work on globalization and climate change eg in One (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Nathan Nobis, Reply to John Altick's Rejoinder to Graham and Nobis's Review of Putting Humans First by Tibor Machan.
    David Graham , email: spunth@thefreesite.com>; url: http://reductioblog.com>, is an independent scholar living in Sacramento, California. He graduated summa cum laude from California State University, Sacramento, with degrees in English and philosophy. His writing, which focuses on libertarianism and animal rights, has been published on iFeminists.com and Strike-the-Root.com.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Nathan Nobis, The “Babe” Vegetarians: Bioethics, Animal Minds and Moral Methodology.
    “The fact is that animals that don't seem to have a purpose really do have a purpose. The Bosses have to eat. It's probably the most noble purpose of all, when you come to think about it.” – Cat, “Babe”.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Nathan Nobis (forthcoming). So Why Does Animal Experimentation Matter? American Journal of Bioethics 3 (1).
    Frey sets the challenge for the other authors: to explain why, morally, no humans can be subject to the kinds of experiments that animals are subject to and to explain how researchers can reliablyuse animal models to understand and cure human disease. He thinks that the first challenge has not been met; the second challenge is, unfortunately, not directly addressed in this book. Adrian Morrison states that he “abhors” positions like Frey’s, Peter Singer’s and Tom Regan’s. He asserts that all (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Nathan Nobis (2012). RM Hare's Irrationalist “Rationalism”. Southwest Philosophy Review 27 (1):205-214.
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Lori Marino, Randy Malamud, Ron Broglio, Scott O. Lilienfeld & Nathan Nobis (2011). Strong Claims, Feeble Evidence: A Rejoinder to Falk Et Al. (2010). Society and Animals 19 (3):291-293.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. N. Nobis (2011). Abortion, Metaphysics and Morality: A Review of Francis Beckwith's Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice. [REVIEW] Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 36 (3):261-273.
    In Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice (2007) and an earlier article in this journal, "Defending Abortion Philosophically"(2006), Francis Beckwith argues that fetuses are, from conception, prima facie wrong to kill. His arguments are based on what he calls a "metaphysics of the human person" known as "The Substance View." I argue that Beckwith’s metaphysics does not support his abortion ethic: Moral, not metaphysical, claims that are part of this Substance View are the foundation of the (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Randy Malamud, Lori Marino, Nathan Nobis, Ron Broglio & Scott O. Lilienfeld (2010). Do Zoos and Aquariums Promote Attitude Change in Visitors? A Critical Evaluation of the American Zoo and Aquarium Study. Society and Animals 18 (2):126-138.
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Lori Marino, Scott O. Lilienfeld, Randy Malamud, Nathan Nobis & Ron Broglio (2010). Do Zoos and Aquariums Promote Attitude Change in Visitors? A Critical Evaluation of the American Zoo and Aquarium Study. Society and Animals 18 (2):126-138.
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Nathan Nobis & Molly Gardner (2010). Cut the Fat! Defending Trans Fats Bans. American Journal of Bioethics 10 (3):39 - 40.
    Is banning trans fat a bad policy? Resnik (2010) offers two general reasons for thinking so. First, because trans fat bans could lead to the government’s placing other objectionable restrictions upon food choices. Second, that, because we can adequately reduce trans fat consumption through education and mandatory labeling, bans are unnecessary. There are good reasons to reject both claims. First, since any slippery slope towards further restrictions on food choices is easily avoided, trans fat bans do not give the cause (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Nathan Nobis & Abubakarr Sidique Jarr-Koroma (2010). Abortion and Moral Arguments From Analogy. American Journal of Bioethics 10 (12):59-61.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Nathan Nobis (2009). Interests and Harms in Primate Research. American Journal of Bioethics 9 (5):27-29.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Nathan Nobis (2009). The Babe Vegetarians. In Sandra Shapshay (ed.), Bioethics at the Movies. Johns Hopkins University Press. 56.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Nathan Nobis (2008). Reasonable Humans and Animals: An Argument for Vegetarianism. Between the Species 13 (8):4.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. David Graham & Nathan Nobis (2007). Animals and Rights. Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 8 (2).
  19. Nathan Nobis (2007). A Rational Defense of Animal Experimentation. Journal of Philosophical Research 32 (Supplement):49-62.
    Many people involved in the life sciences and related fields and industries routinely cause mice, rats, dogs, cats, primates and other non-human animals to experience pain, suffering, and an early death, harming these animals greatly and not for their own benefit. Harms, however, require moral justification, reasons that pass critical scrutiny. Animal experimenters and dissectors might suspect that strong moral justification has been given for this kind of treatment of animals. I survey some recent attempts to provide such a justification (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. David Graham & Nathan Nobis (2006). Putting Humans First? [REVIEW] Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 8 (1):85 - 104.
    In Putting Humans First: Why We Are Natures Favorite, Tibor Machan argues against moral perspectives that require taking animals' interests seriously. He attempts to defend the status quo regarding routine, harmful uses of animals for food, fashion and experimentation. Graham and Nobis argue that Machan's work fails to resist pro-animal moral conclusions that are supported by a wide range of contemporary ethical arguments.
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Nathan Nobis (2006). Moral Realism. Teaching Philosophy 29 (2):178-181.
  22. Nathan Nobis (2006). Putting Humans First? [REVIEW] Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 8 (1):85 - 104.
    In Putting Humans First: Why We Are Natures Favorite, Tibor Machan argues against moral perspectives that require taking animals' interests seriously. He attempts to defend the status quo regarding routine, harmful uses of animals for food, fashion and experimentation. Graham and Nobis argue that Machan's work fails to resist pro-animal moral conclusions that are supported by a wide range of contemporary ethical arguments.
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Nathan Nobis (2005). Feminist Ethics Without Feminist Ethical Theory (Or, More Generally, “Φ Ethics Without Φ Ethical Theory”). Journal of Philosophical Research 30 (Supplement):213-225.
    There are at least two models of what it is to be a feminist ethicist or moral philosopher. One model requires that one accept a distinctively feminist ethical theory. I will argue against this model by arguing that since the concept of a feminist ethical theory is highly unclear, any claim that ethicists who are feminist need one is also unclear and inadequately defended. I will advocate what I call a "minimal model" of feminist ethics, arguing that it is philosophically (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Nathan Nobis (2004). Carl Cohen's 'Kind' Arguments for Animal Rights and Against Human Rights. Journal of Applied Philosophy 21 (1):43–59.
    Carl Cohen's arguments against animal rights are shown to be unsound. His strategy entails that animals have rights, that humans do not, the negations of those conclusions, and other false and inconsistent implications. His main premise seems to imply that one can fail all tests and assignments in a class and yet easily pass if one's peers are passing and that one can become a convicted criminal merely by setting foot in a prison. However, since his moral principles imply that (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Nathan Nobis (2003). So Why Does Animal Experimentation Matter? Review of Ellen Frankel Paul and Jeffrey Paul, Eds. 2001. Why Animal Experimentation Matters: The Use of Animals in Medical Research. American Journal of Bioethics 3 (1):1 – 2.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Nathan Nobis (2002). Carl Cohen and Tom Regan, the Animal Rights Debate (Book Review). Journal of Value Inquiry 36 (4):579-583.
  27. Nathan Nobis (2002). The Real Problem of Infant and Animal Suffering. Philo 5 (2):216-225.
    The problem of infant suffering and death has remained one of the most intractable problems for theists. Andrew Chignell has attempted to develop a theodicy for this problem that is based on Marilyn Adam’s paradigm for theodicy. However, his discussion repeatedly avoids the argument that, traditionally, most have thought to be the basis of this problem of evil. Thus, his theodicy provides the traditional theist with no adequate response to the problem. I argue that since infant suffering is a serious (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Nathan Nobis (2002). Vegetarianism and Virtue. Social Theory and Practice 28 (1):135-156.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Nathan Nobis (2002). Who Needs the 'Actual Future Principle'? Southwest Philosophy Review 18 (2):55-63.
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Nathan Nobis (2001). ‘Balancing Out’ Infant Torture and Death: A Reply to Chignell. Religious Studies 37 (1):103-108.
    In a recent article published in this journal, Andrew Chignell proposes some candidates for greater or ‘balancing out’ goods that could explain why God allows some infants to be tortured to death. I argue that each of Chignell's proposals is either incoherent, metaphysically dubious, and/or morally objectionable. Thus, his proposals do not explain what might justify God in allowing infants to be tortured, and the existence of infant suffering remains a serious problem for traditional theism.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Nathan Nobis (2001). 'Better Selves' and Sympathy. Southwest Philosophy Review 17 (2):141-145.
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Nathan Nobis, Appendix to Rational Engagement, Emotional Response: ...Animal Use Debates...
    I now apply these logical skills to many other common arguments in defense of animal use. In each case, once we make the premises clear, precise and/or add the missing premise(s) needed to reveal the full pattern of reasoning, we see that each argument has at least one premise that is either false or in need of serious, but unsupplied, rational defense. Thus, we should believe these arguments are unsound.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Nathan Nobis, Not Just WWJD, but WWJDWJWD?: A Reply to Zagzebski.
    Zagzebski’s paper ends with a passage from Iris Murdoch. While the character in the passage is Kant, who recognizes the sounds of the moral law as coming from “the voice of his own reason,” (p. 22) Murdoch’s message seems to be directed to anyone who accepts a “secular” ethic. We can understand her message as a warning: DO NOT reject theistic or Christian ethics; DO NOT fail to view Christ as the source of the moral law, for this rejection is (...)
    No categories
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation