This page is not a forum for general discussion about Argument from marginal cases. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Argument from marginal cases at the Reference desk. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Two things to do for this page: Daniel Dombrowski's Babies and Beasts cites the person who originally articulated the Argument From Marginal Cases (at least in modern times in the West), and that should be noted here. Also, something should be mentioned in articles about animal liberation philosophy that links to this page. Thanks for creating this page. - Unnyn 19:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I changed this second sentence of the article, because if one expresses the argument in this way, one should not wonder if one is opposed by slippery-slope-arguments. With the argument from marginal cases, one does certainly NOT want to prove that marginal case humans lack a moral status, but that if they do, which is accepted by the majority of people, then animals do, too. What use would it have for a philosopher of animal rights to prove that animals don't have a moral status?
My English isn't as good as it used to be, so if I accidentally changed the meaning of the sentence, please correct my mistakes. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.51.168.178 ( talk) 10:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
--Owi 09:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Argument from marginal cases. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Argument from marginal cases at the Reference desk. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Two things to do for this page: Daniel Dombrowski's Babies and Beasts cites the person who originally articulated the Argument From Marginal Cases (at least in modern times in the West), and that should be noted here. Also, something should be mentioned in articles about animal liberation philosophy that links to this page. Thanks for creating this page. - Unnyn 19:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I changed this second sentence of the article, because if one expresses the argument in this way, one should not wonder if one is opposed by slippery-slope-arguments. With the argument from marginal cases, one does certainly NOT want to prove that marginal case humans lack a moral status, but that if they do, which is accepted by the majority of people, then animals do, too. What use would it have for a philosopher of animal rights to prove that animals don't have a moral status?
My English isn't as good as it used to be, so if I accidentally changed the meaning of the sentence, please correct my mistakes. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.51.168.178 ( talk) 10:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
--Owi 09:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)