_The Weight of Things_ explores the hard questions of our daily lives, examining both classic and contemporary accounts of what it means to lead 'the good life'. Looks at the views of philosophers such as Aristotle, the Stoics, Mill, Nietzsche, and Sartre as well as contributions from other traditions, such as Buddhism Incorporates key arguments from contemporary philosophers including Peter Singer, Martha Nussbaum, Robert Nozick, John Finnis, and Susan Wolf Uses examples from biography, literature, history, movies and media, and the (...) news Gives a fresh perspective on the hard questions of our daily lives An engaging read; an excellent book for both students and general readers. (shrink)

Advocates of veganism often assume that food enjoyment has little moral weight, because it involves mere taste pleasure. Because of the triviality of taste pleasure, they consider it obvious that harming animals to secure particular tastes is ‘unnecessary’. After discussing the elements of taste, defending the importance of taste, exploring what ‘unnecessary harm’ means, and introducing a number of taste related thought experiments, I argue that harm to animals is not always unnecessary, when what's at stake is taste. However, by (...) supplementing considerations involving necessity with considerations of character, I conclude that vegans are often, though not always, praiseworthy. (shrink)

Every aspect of having and raising a child leads to profound and challenging philosophical questions. The Philosophical Parent is a companion for parents and parents-to-be that explores the myriad worries that come with making and raising children. Kazez explores eighteen perplexities, arguing for a novel view of the parent-child relationship, with implications at every stage of parenthood.

Clearly some parental aims get the parent-child relationship started on the wrong foot. It’s not OK to have a child so you’ll later have a tennis partner. It is OK to want responsibility, focus, bonding with a partner, and the pleasures of daily life with children.

Clearly some parental aims get the parent-child relationship started on the wrong foot. It’s not OK to have a child so you’ll later have a tennis partner. It is OK to want responsibility, focus, bonding with a partner, and the pleasures of daily life with children.

Clearly some parental aims get the parent-child relationship started on the wrong foot. It’s not OK to have a child so you’ll later have a tennis partner. It is OK to want responsibility, focus, bonding with a partner, and the pleasures of daily life with children.

By exploring the ethical differences between humans and animals, _Animalkind_ establishes a middle ground between egalitarianism and outright dismissal of animal rights. A thought-provoking foray into our complex and contradictory relationship with animals Advocates that we owe each animal due respect Offers readers a sensible alternative to extremism by speaking of respect and compassion for animals, not rights Balances philosophical analysis with intriguing facts and engaging tales.

John Stuart Mill famously maintained that “animal pleasures” – like enjoying good smells and tastes – are lower quality than the pleasures tied to higher cognition, like the pleasure of enjoying an opera or understanding a mathematical proof. This downgrading is particularly common in the ethical literature about eating animals. Peter Singer, James Rachels, Gary Francione, Alastair Norcross and dozens of other ethicists make quick work of defending vegetarianism by presuming that “gustatory pleasure” is trivial. But is it?