Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Rachels authored papers defending moral vegetarianism.His best known paper on the subject was The Basic Argument for Vegetarianism in 2004. Rachels proposed what he called the basic argument for vegetarianism which he believed is supported by a simple principle that every decent person accepts: it is wrong to cause pain unless there is a good enough reason.
The Elements of Moral Philosophy is a 1986 ethics textbook by the philosophers James Rachels and Stuart Rachels. [1] It explains a number of moral theories and topics, including cultural relativism, subjectivism, divine command theory, ethical egoism, social contract theory, utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, and deontology. The book uses real ...
Philosopher James Rachels, in an essay that takes as its title the theory's name, outlines the three arguments most commonly touted in its favor: [12] "The first argument," writes Rachels, "has several variations, each suggesting the same general point: [13] "Each of us is intimately familiar with our own individual wants and needs.
The chapter is excerpted in the fourth (2007) edition of Stuart and James Rachels's The Right Thing to Do: Basic Readings in Moral Philosophy. [ 2 ] Argument from disagreement
James Rachels has argued that the theory of evolution implies that there is only a gradient between humans and other animals, and therefore marginal-case humans should be considered similar to non-human animals.
Philosopher James Rachels posited that reverse discrimination as a factor in affirmative action in the United States may disadvantage some Whites, but without it, African Americans would likewise be disadvantaged by pervasive racial discrimination in society. [1]
The philosopher James Rachels recommended the book "as an introduction centered on such practical issues as abortion, racism, and so forth." [5] The philosopher Mylan Engel called the book "must reading for anyone interested in living an ethical life." [6] H. L. A. Hart's review of the first edition in The New York Review of Books was mixed.
Philosopher Gilbert Harman considered "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" to be one of the most famous articles in ethics. [6] In 1981, philosopher James Rachels said of the article: "one felt intellectual interest in the argument, but also guilt for not having contributed more money to relieve starvation".