A Response to Deckers

Journal of Animal Ethics 1 (2):210-214 (2011)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In this short article I respond, both positively and negatively, but mostly positively, to Jan Deckers’ examination of my defense of nonhuman animal rights from the perspective of process philosophy and from the perspective of what is commonly called the argument from marginal cases.

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.5406/janimalethics.1.2.0210

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,571

External links

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

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

A Response to Deckers.Jay McDaniel - 2011 - Journal of Animal Ethics 1 (1):93-95.
Should Whiteheadians Be Vegetarians? A Critical Analysis of the Thoughts of Hartshorne and Dombrowski.Jan Deckers - 2011 - Journal of Animal Ethics 1 (2):195-209.
The New EU Directive on the Use of Animals for Research and the Value of Moral Consistency.Jan Deckers - 2012 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 9 (4):377-379.
Should Whiteheadians Be Vegetarians? A Critical Analysis of the Thoughts of Whitehead, Birch, Cobb, and McDaniel.Jan Deckers - 2011 - Journal of Animal Ethics 1 (1):80-92.
Why two arguments from probability fail and one argument from Thomson's analogy of the violinist succeeds in justifying embryo destruction in some situations.J. Deckers - 2007 - Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (3):160-164.
Why Eberl is wrong. Reflections on the beginning of personhood.Jan Deckers - 2007 - Bioethics 21 (5):270–282.
Boekbesprekingen.J. Mulders, H. H. M. Thijssen, F. Tillmans, J.-M. Tison, F. J. Theunis, A. Poncelet, A. J. Leijen, A. Baekelandt, R. Ceusters, M. De Tollenaere, P. Fransen, J. Kerkhofs, K. Boey, W. Deckers & H. P. M. Goddijn - 1973 - Bijdragen 34 (1):102-115.
Why current uk legislation on embryo research is immoral. How the argument from lack of qualities and the argument from potentiality have been applied and why they should be rejected.Jan Deckers - 2005 - Bioethics 19 (3):251–271.
Chapter Three Confronting Luminescence with Radiocarbon Dates for Fluvial Deposits in the Upper Khabur Basin of Northeastern Syria.Katleen Deckers & Dmitri Vandenberghe - 2007 - In Bart Ooghe & Geert Verhoeven (eds.), Broadening Horizons: Multidisciplinary Approaches to Landscape Study. Cambridge Scholars Press. pp. 50.
The Costs and Benefits of Animal Experiments: Andrew Knight, 2011, Palgrave Macmillan.Jan Deckers - 2013 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 10 (4):515-517.
Response to Boulting.Daniel Dombrowski - 2005 - Process Studies 34 (1):136-140.
Response: A Defense of Pluhar.Daniel Dombrowski - 1991 - Between the Species 7 (3):4.
Review: Daniel A. Dombrowski: Rethinking the Ontological Argument: A Neoclassical Theistic Response. [REVIEW]G. Oppy - 2008 - Mind 117 (467):690-693.
Daniel A. Dombrowski: Rethinking the Ontological Argument: A Neoclassical Theistic Response. [REVIEW]Elizabeth Burns - 2009 - Heythrop Journal 50 (4):719-721.
Deliberation, Reason, and Indigestion: Response to Daniel Dombrowski's Rawls and Religion: The Case for Political Liberalism.Zandra Wagoner - 2010 - American Journal of Theology and Philosophy 31 (3):179-195.

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-02-02

Downloads
15 (#940,347)

6 months
8 (#351,566)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Daniel Dombrowski
Seattle University

Citations of this work

Animal National Liberation?Per-Anders Svärd - 2013 - Journal of Animal Ethics 3 (2):188-200.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Is the argument from marginal cases obtuse?Daniel A. Dombrowski - 2006 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 23 (2):223–232.

Add more references