49 found
Order:
See also
Profile: Nathan Nobis (Morehouse College)
  1.  30
    Tom Regan on Kind Arguments Against Animal Rights and for Human Rights.Nathan Nobis - 2016 - In Mylan Engel Jr & Gary Comstock (eds.), The Moral Rights of Animals. Lexington Books. pp. 65-80.
    Tom Regan argues that human beings and some non-human animals have moral rights because they are “subjects of lives,” that is, roughly, conscious, sentient beings with an experiential welfare. A prominent critic, Carl Cohen, objects: he argues that only moral agents have rights and so animals, since they are not moral agents, lack rights. An objection to Cohen’s argument is that his theory of rights seems to imply that human beings who are not moral agents have no moral rights, but (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2. A Moral Argument for Veganism.Daniel Hooley & Nathan Nobis - 2016 - In Andrew Chignell, Matthew Halteman & Terence Cuneo (eds.), Philosophy Comes to Dinner: Arguments on the Ethics of Eating.
  3. Carl Cohen's 'Kind' Arguments for Animal Rights and Against Human Rights.Nathan Nobis - 2004 - 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 (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   9 citations  
  4.  11
    Review of SHERRY F. COLB AND MICHAEL C. DORF Beating Hearts: Abortion and Animal Rights. [REVIEW]Nathan Nobis - 2016 - Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 1 (1):1-2.
    In this book, law professors Sherry F. Colb and Michael C. Dorf argue that: -/- many non-human animals, at least vertebrates, are morally considerable and prima facie wrong to harm because they are sentient, i.e., conscious and capable of experiencing pains and pleasures; most aborted human fetuses are not sentient -- their brains and nervous systems are not yet developed enough for sentience -- and so the motivating moral concern for animals doesn't apply to most abortions[2]; later abortions affecting sentient (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  5. Reasonable Humans and Animals: An Argument for Vegetarianism.Nathan Nobis - 2008 - Between the Species 13 (8):4.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  6.  24
    Abortion and Animal Rights - Does Either Topic Lead to the Other?Nathan Nobis - unknown - What's Wrong? Blog.
    Should people who believe in animal rights think that abortion is wrong? Should pro-lifers accept animal rights? If you think it’s wrong to kill fetuses to end pregnancies, should you also think it’s wrong to kill animals to, say, eat them? If you, say, oppose animal research, should you also oppose abortion? -/- Some argue ‘yes’ and others argue ‘no’ to either or both sets of questions. The correct answer, however, seems to be, ‘it depends’: it depends on why someone (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7.  31
    Do Zoos and Aquariums Promote Attitude Change in Visitors? A Critical Evaluation of the American Zoo and Aquarium Study.Randy Malamud, Lori Marino, Nathan Nobis, Ron Broglio & Scott O. Lilienfeld - 2010 - Society and Animals 18 (2):126-138.
    Modern-day zoos and aquariums market themselves as places of education and conservation. A recent study conducted by the American Zoo and Aquarium Association is being widely heralded as the first direct evidence that visits to zoos and aquariums produce long-term positive effects on people’s attitudes toward other animals. In this paper, we address whether this conclusion is warranted by analyzing the study’s methodological soundness. We conclude that Falk et al. contains at least six major threats to methodological validity that undermine (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  8. Rational Engagement, Emotional Response and the Prospects for Progress in Animal Use ‘Debates’.Nathan Nobis - manuscript
    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 (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  9. Vegetarianism and Virtue: Does Consequentialism Demand Too Little?Nathan Nobis - 2002 - Social Theory and Practice 28 (1):135-156.
    "Nobis argues that Singer's consequentialist approach is inadequate for defending the moral obligation to become a vegetarian or vegan. The consequentialist case rests on the idea that being a vegetarian or vegan maximizes utility -- the fewer animals that are raised and killed for food, the less suffering. Nobis argues that this argument does not work on an individual level -- my becoming a vegetarian makes no difference to the overall utility of reducing animal suffering in a context of a (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  10. Putting Humans First? [REVIEW]Nathan Nobis - 2006 - 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.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  11.  19
    Cut the Fat! Defending Trans Fats Bans.Nathan Nobis & Molly Gardner - 2010 - 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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  12.  46
    So Why Does Animal Experimentation Matter?Nathan Nobis - forthcoming - 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  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  13. Animals and Rights.David Graham & Nathan Nobis - 2007 - Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 8 (2).
  14.  99
    Moral Realism.Nathan Nobis - 2006 - Teaching Philosophy 29 (2):178-181.
  15.  23
    Abortion and Moral Arguments From Analogy.Nathan Nobis & Abubakarr Sidique Jarr-Koroma - 2010 - American Journal of Bioethics 10 (12):59-61.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  16. Entry On: Singer, Peter.Nathan Nobis - manuscript
    |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 (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  17.  51
    Ayer and Stevenson's Epistemological Emotivisms.Nathan Nobis - 2004 - Croatian Journal of Philosophy 4 (1):59-79.
    Ayer and Stevenson advocated ethical emotivisms, non-cognitivist understandings of the meanings of moral terms and functions of moral judgments. I argue that their reasons for ethical emotivisms suggestanalogous epistemological emotivisms. Epistemological emotivism importantly undercuts any epistemic support Ayer and Stevenson offered for ethical emotivism. This is because if epistemic emotivism is true, all epistemic judgments are neither true nor false so it is neither true nor false that anyone should accept ethical emotivism or is justified in believing it. Thus, their (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  18.  8
    Interests and Harms in Primate Research.Nathan Nobis - 2009 - American Journal of Bioethics 9 (5):27-29.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  19.  18
    ‘Balancing Out’ Infant Torture and Death: A Reply to Chignell.Nathan Nobis - 2001 - 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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  20.  34
    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.Nathan Nobis - 2003 - American Journal of Bioethics 3 (1):1 – 2.
  21.  81
    A Libertarian Replies to Tibor Machan's 'Why Animal Rights Don't Exist'.Nathan Nobis - manuscript
    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  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  22.  19
    Vegetarianism and Virtue.Nathan Nobis - 2002 - Social Theory and Practice 28 (1):135-156.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  23.  46
    A Rational Defense of Animal Experimentation.Nathan Nobis - 2007 - 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 (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  24.  59
    Carl Cohen and Tom Regan, the Animal Rights Debate (Book Review).Nathan Nobis - 2002 - Journal of Value Inquiry 36 (4):579-583.
  25.  56
    Feminist Ethics Without Feminist Ethical Theory (Or, More Generally, “Φ Ethics Without Φ Ethical Theory”).Nathan Nobis - 2005 - 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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  26.  10
    The Ethics of Animal Research: A Survey of the Public and Scientists in North America.Ari R. Joffe, Meredith Bara, Natalie Anton & Nathan Nobis - 2016 - BMC Medical Ethics 17 (1):1-12.
    BackgroundTo determine whether the public and scientists consider common arguments in support of animal research convincing.MethodsAfter validation, the survey was sent to samples of public, Amazon Mechanical Turk, a Canadian city festival and children’s hospital), medical students, and scientists. We presented questions about common arguments to justify the moral permissibility of AR. Responses were compared using Chi-square with Bonferonni correction.ResultsThere were 1220 public [SSI, n = 586; AMT, n = 439; Festival, n = 195; Hospital n = 107], 194/331 medical (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  27.  37
    The Real Problem of Infant and Animal Suffering.Nathan Nobis - 2002 - 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 (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  28.  14
    Expectations for Methodology and Translation of Animal Research: A Survey of Health Care Workers.Ari R. Joffe, Meredith Bara, Natalie Anton & Nathan Nobis - 2015 - BMC Medical Ethics 16 (1):29.
    Health care workers often perform, promote, and advocate use of public funds for animal research ; therefore, an awareness of the empirical costs and benefits of animal research is an important issue for HCW. We aim to determine what health-care-workers consider should be acceptable standards of AR methodology and translation rate to humans.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  29.  47
    Who Needs the ’Actual Future Principle’?: Harman on Abortion.Nathan Nobis - 2002 - Southwest Philosophy Review 18 (2):55-63.
    Elizabeth Harman has presented a novel view on the moral status of early fetuses that she calls the “ Actual Future Principle” : An early fetus that will become a person has some moral status. An early fetus that will die while it is still an early fetus has no moral status. This view is said to justify a "very liberal" position on abortion, that "early abortion requires no moral justification whatsoever," and show this position to be "more attractive than (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  30.  3
    Abortion.Nathan Nobis - 2016 - The Philosophers' Magazine 72:87-88.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  31.  16
    R.M. Hare’s Irrationalist “Rationalism”.Nathan Nobis - 2011 - Southwest Philosophy Review 27 (1):205-214.
  32. Not Just WWJD, but WWJDWJWD?: A Reply to Zagzebski.Nathan Nobis - unknown
    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 (...)
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  33.  14
    Who Needs the 'Actual Future Principle'?Nathan Nobis - 2002 - Southwest Philosophy Review 18 (2):55-63.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  34.  31
    Defending Embryo Experimentation.Nathan Nobis - unknown
    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.
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  35.  11
    'Better Selves' and Sympathy.Nathan Nobis - 2001 - Southwest Philosophy Review 17 (2):141-145.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  36.  25
    The “Babe” Vegetarians: Bioethics, Animal Minds and Moral Methodology.Nathan Nobis - manuscript
    “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  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  37.  6
    R.M. Hare’s Irrationalist “Rationalism”: A Critic of Universal Prescriptivism.Nathan Nobis - 2011 - Southwest Philosophy Review 27 (1):205-214.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  38. Review of Putting Humans First: Why We Are Nature's Favorite by Tibor Machan. [REVIEW]Nathan Nobis - manuscript
    In Putting Humans First: Why We Are Nature’s 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 show that his arguments fail: they arguments provide no good reason to resist pro-animal moral conclusions that are supported by a wide range of contemporary ethical arguments.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  39.  4
    The Ethics of Animal Research: A Survey of Pediatric Health Care Workers.Ari R. Joffe, Meredith Bara, Natalie Anton & Nathan Nobis - 2014 - Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 9 (1):20.
    Pediatric health care workers often perform, promote, and advocate use of public funds for animal research . We aim to determine whether HCW consider common arguments in support of AR convincing.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  40.  3
    Review of Jonathan Kahn, Race in a Bottle: The Story of BiDil and Racialized Medicine in the Post-Genomic Age1. [REVIEW]Nathan Nobis - 2015 - American Journal of Bioethics 15 (10):4-5.
    This article is book review of Race in a Bottle: The Story of BiDil and Racialized Medicine in the Post-Genomic Age by Jonathan Kahn.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  41.  4
    Strong Claims, Feeble Evidence: A Rejoinder to Falk Et Al.Lori Marino, Randy Malamud, Ron Broglio, Scott O. Lilienfeld & Nathan Nobis - 2011 - Society and Animals 19 (3):291-293.
    The criticisms of Falk et al. are addressed, and the question of whether claims made by Falk et al. are valid is revisited. This rebuttal contends that Falk et al. misconstrue Popper’s role in philosophy of science and hence do not provide a strong test of their hypothesis. Falk et al. claim that they never made causal statements about the impact of zoo and aquarium visits in their 2007 study. Yet, this commentary shows that Falk et al. draw several unsupported, (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  42.  11
    Reply to John Altick's Rejoinder to Graham and Nobis's Review of Putting Humans First by Tibor Machan.Nathan Nobis - manuscript
    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  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  43.  1
    ‘Better Selves’ and Sympathy: Comments on Gill.Nathan Nobis - 2001 - Southwest Philosophy Review 17 (2):141-145.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  44.  1
    Who Needs the ’Actual Future Principle’?: Harman on Abortion.Nathan Nobis - 2002 - Southwest Philosophy Review 18 (2):55-63.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  45.  3
    Rejoinder to John Altick, "Putting Humans First? YES!" (Spring 2007): Animals and Rights.David Graham & Nathan Nobis - 2007 - Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 8 (2):331 - 339.
    In his reply to the Nobis-Graham review of Tibor Machan's book, Putting Humans First, John Altick defends Machan's and Rand's theories of moral rights, specifically as they relate to the rights of non-human animals and non-rational human beings. Nobis and Graham argue that Altick's defense fails and that it would be wrong to eat, wear, and experiment on non-rational—yet conscious and sentient—human beings. Since morally relevant differences between these kinds of humans and animals have not been identified to justify a (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  46.  3
    The Babe Vegetarians.Nathan Nobis - 2009 - In Sandra Shapshay (ed.), Bioethics at the Movies. Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 56.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  47.  4
    Appendix to Rational Engagement, Emotional Response: ...Animal Use Debates...Nathan Nobis - unknown
    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.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  48. Animals & Ethics 101: Thinking Critically About Animal Rights.Nathan Nobis - 2016 - Digitalcommons@Robert W. Woodruff Library, Atlanta University Center.
    This book provides an overview of the current debates about the nature and extent of our moral obligations to animals. Which, if any, uses of animals are morally wrong, which are morally permissible and why? What, if any, moral obligations do we, individually and as a society, have towards animals and why? How should animals be treated? Why? We will explore the most influential and most developed answers to these questions – given by philosophers, scientists, and animal advocates and their (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  49. Feminist Ethics Without Feminist Ethical Theory.Nathan Nobis - 2005 - Journal of Philosophical Research 30 (Supplement):213-225.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography