Critical Notice of Morals, Reason, and Animals

A review of Morals, Reason, and philosophy is (in)famous, the combined force of their Animals by Steven F. Sapontzis work has been to put apologists for theory's traditional (Philadelphia: Temple University pretensions somewhat on the defensive. The critics' Press, 1987) positive views about the form of moral philosophy sans moral theory, have, however, been even more varied (and rather vaguer) than their critiques. From the lack of an articulate positive program, along with suspicions that antitheory in ethics might have strongly conservative implications, the theorists have taken heart. Sapontzis' contribution to this debate-although he modestly does not identify it as such-is quite important. He provides an object lesson in how to do In a series of articles dating back to the late moral philosophy without a commitment to a single 1970's, Steven F. Sapontzis has developed a position unified theory which demonstrates in the abstract what on our moral relationship to nonhuman animals which "makes right acts right." In so doing, he shows that it is at least as searching and as original as the better­ doesn't take such a theory to provide an intellectually known work of Singer and Regan. Morals. Reason, respectable critique of a major social institution. and Animals assembles and refines the themes introduced in his earlier essays. The result is an *** interesting contribution to a discussion in contemporary moral theory, as well as an examination of our dealings Sapontzis' own "anti-theoretical" tendencies with nonhumans that shows just how thoroughly dovetail with what is perhaps the leading idea of his dubious they are. book, namely, that we have made altogether too much A major ongoing debate in moral philosophy of reason as a qualification for moral status. The kind concerns what, to use a characteristically Sapontzian of reason of which philosophers tend to be fond, as way of putting things, might be called the Sapontzis sees it, not only can't build theories that will (in)Significance of Moral Theory. Influential writers conclusively resolve moral quandaries, but is also beside such as Bernard Williams, Annette Baier, Martha the point as a requirement for being morally significant. Nussbaum, and Alasdair MacIntyre, among many others, have all raised considerable doubts about the philosophical enterprise of"grounding" ethics in moral theory, especially if that is taken to mean one which claims to be able to derive our moral duties from a small number of basic principles. l Although the critics' REVIEW reasons for inveighing against the "standard" conception of ethical theory exhibit the variety for which