On Stopping at Everything

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.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

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

The “Interests” of Natural Objects.Jay E. Kantor - 1980 - Environmental Ethics 2 (2):163-171.
Machines, Sentience, and the Scope of Morality.Frederik Kaufman - 1994 - Environmental Ethics 16 (1):57-70.
To Swat or Not to Swat.Mark A. Michael - 1996 - Environmental Ethics 18 (2):165-180.
Two Arguments against Biological Interests.Aaron Simmons - 2010 - Environmental Ethics 32 (3):229-245.
Humanity, Holism, and Environmental Ethics.Lawrence E. Johnson - 1983 - Environmental Ethics 5 (4):345-354.
Are Mere Things Morally Considerable?W. Murray Hunt - 1980 - Environmental Ethics 2 (1):59-65.
The Interests of Fish.Dionys de Leeuw - 1998 - Environmental Ethics 20 (2):219-220.
In Nature’s Interests? [REVIEW]David Schmidtz - 1999 - Environmental Ethics 21 (4):433-436.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
145 (#297,008)

6 months
29 (#313,182)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?