Conference held Feb. 18-20, 1971; sponsored by the Franklin College of Arts and Sciences of the University of Georgia and the Danforth fund. Includes bibliographical references.

The science of ecology has sensitized us to the intricate causal chains in nature and to the threat to the life system posed by environmental misuse. Responding to the data provided by environmental science, some philosophers have called for fundamentally new ethical principles—a recognition of nonhuman values and an extension of rights not only to animals but to inanimate parts of nature. These attempts to develop an ecological ethic call for radical conceptual revision of the way in which most persons (...) perceive man and the world. This paper explicates those revisions and points to some philosophical difficulties which confront them. (shrink)

The attempt to utilize the methods of science to justify one ethical code as opposed to another has the advantage of avoiding the dogmatism and question-begging techniques characteristic of many traditional ethical theories. However, such attempts are invariably involved in value reductionism, leaving normative terms bereft of their normative import. Science is related to ethics in a number of important ways, but not in the sense that inductive evidence can justify one standard of right conduct as opposed to others.

Selections (with introductions) intended to introduce college students at all levels of sophistication to philosophical problems which grow naturally out of everyday concerns. Emphasis is on moral and social philosophy with which the student is presumed to be familiar: killing and rescuing, racial and sexual equality, liberty and its limitation, love and sexual behavior. No index. Annotation copyrighted by Book News, Inc., Portland, OR.

Twice in the _Journal of Business Ethics_, Walter Block provides a libertarian argument that The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is unjust because it is a violation of a business’s property rights and therefore ought to be repealed. No libertarian reply to Block has ever been given, creating the mistaken impression that his argument is the true representation of libertarian theory with regards to civil rights. This paper focuses on Title II and argues that both Block, and this prevailing opinion (...) of libertarian theory, are wrong. There are different types of libertarian theory. Block’s theory of natural rights is one of them, but there is another strain of libertarian thought that embraces the common law, at least as it existed up until the late 1800’s. This paper explicates a libertarian argument, based on the common law, which supports and defends Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Specifically, the evolution of contracts via assumpsit arguments, found in Blackstone’s _Commentaries,_ endogenously and consistently gives rise to the obligation to serve all. Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act is consistent with this common law tradition on public accommodations. Libertarian arguments that accept the common law on contracts ought also to accept common law doctrine on public accommodations and, _perforce_, the justness of Title II. (shrink)