On Stopping at Everything: A Reply to W. M. Hunt

Environmental Ethics 2 (3):281-284 (1980)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Contrary to W. Murray Hunt’s suggestion, living things deserve moral consideration and inanimate objects do not precisely because living things can intelligibly be said to have interests (and inanimate objects cannot intelligibly said to have interests). Interests are crucial because the concept of morality is noncontingently related to beneficence or nonmaleficence, notions which misfire completely in theabsence of entities capable of being benefited or harmed

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,611

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Two Arguments against Biological Interests.Aaron Simmons - 2010 - Environmental Ethics 32 (3):229-245.
Machines, Sentience, and the Scope of Morality.Frederik Kaufman - 1994 - Environmental Ethics 16 (1):57-70.
For the Sake of a Stone? Inanimate Things and the Demands of Morality.Simon P. James - 2011 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 54 (4):384-397.
Are mere things morally considerable?W. Murray Hunt - 1980 - Environmental Ethics 2 (1):59-65.
To Swat or Not to Swat.Mark A. Michael - 1996 - Environmental Ethics 18 (2):165-180.
The “interests” of natural objects.Jay E. Kantor - 1980 - Environmental Ethics 2 (2):163-171.
Is equal moral consideration really compatible with unequal moral status?John Rossi - 2010 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 20 (3):251-276.

Analytics

Added to PP
2011-12-01

Downloads
42 (#382,240)

6 months
4 (#799,256)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?