A Kantian Argument Against Environmental Destruction
نویسندگان
چکیده
Abstract This chapter makes creative use of Kantianism for Animals to argue against environmental destruction. Previous contributions on Kantian ethics have focused defending Kant’s own conception indirect duties regarding nature, hoping show that view is not as exploitative it sounds. By contrast, this argues ethic indeed exploitative, but objectionably so, long animals are included in moral concern their sake. What results from basically an animal liberationist, sentientist ethics. However, a unique version sentientism well positioned address some traditional objections, particularly thanks the idea self.
منابع مشابه
A Kantian argument against abortion.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. .
متن کاملAgainst the Vagueness Argument
In this paper I offer a counterexample to the so called vagueness argument against restricted composition. This will be done in the lines of a recent suggestion by Trenton Merricks, namely by challenging the claim that there cannot be a sharp cut-off point in a composition sequence. It will be suggested that causal powers which emerge when composition occurs can serve as an indicator of such sh...
متن کاملAn Argument against Epiphenomenalism
_________________________________________________ I formulate an argument against epiphenomenalism; the argument shows that epiphenomenalism is extremely improbable. Moreover the argument suggests that qualia not only have causal powers, but have their causal powers necessarily. I address possible objections and then conclude by considering some implications the argument has for dualism.
متن کاملA Contractarian Argument Against the Death Penalty
Opponents of the death penalty typically base their opposition on contingent features of its administration, arguing that the death penalty is applied discriminatorily, that the innocent are sometimes executed, or that there is insufficient evidence of the death penalty’s deterrent efficacy. Implicit in these arguments is the suggestion that if these contingencies did not obtain, serious moral ...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
ژورنال
عنوان ژورنال: The Palgrave Macmillan animal ethics series
سال: 2022
ISSN: ['2634-6672', '2634-6680']
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-01930-2_10