animals

Nathan Nobis's Ethics & Animals articles, reviews, discussion notes, etc.

Eventually I'll add some commentary on themes, goals and methods, reflections, and places where these writings are cited and/or discussed. They are arranged chronologically.

  • "Rational Engagement, Emotional Response and the Prospects for Progress in Animal Use 'Debates'" (in progress, nearly done), for Jeremy Garrett, ed., Animal Research in Theory and Practice (MIT Basic Bioethics Series. 2008). (In WORD). Here's a draft of an APPENDIX that addresses more arguments. Eventually it'll all be a book (or two), I expect.

  • "Animals & Medicine: Do Animal Experiments Predict Human Responses?" Niall Shanks, Ray Greek, Nathan Nobis, and Jean Swingle-Greek. Skeptic: The Magazine, Volume 13, No. 3, Fall 2007.

  • Reply to John Altick’s Review of Putting Humans First by Tibor Machan, The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies (with David Graham, Spring 2007)

      • Reply to David Graham and Nathan Nobis, "Putting Humans First?" (Fall 2006)

        • PUTTING HUMANS FIRST? YES!, pp. 317-30

          • JOHN ALTICK

          • In "Putting Humans First?" David Graham and Nathan Nobis question Tibor Machan's critique of the idea of "animal rights." They suggest that Machan does not adequately respond to arguments about the impact of "marginal cases" on theories such as his, which claim that natural rights stem from the manner in which human beings as a species interact with the world. Altick argues that Graham and Nobis' critique is misdirected and that it misses Machan's underlying argument, thus leaving his defense of distinctly human natural rights relatively untarnished.

          • REJOINDER TO JOHN ALTICK

          • ANIMALS AND RIGHTS, pp. 331-39

          • DAVID GRAHAM AND NATHAN NOBIS

          • In his reply to the Nobis-Graham review of Tibor Machan's book, Putting Humans First, John Altick defends Machan's and Rand's theories of moral rights, specifically as they relate to the rights of non-human animals and non-rational human beings. Nobis and Graham argue that Altick's defense fails and that it would be wrong to eat, wear, and experiment on non-rational�yet conscious and sentient�human beings. Since morally relevant differences between these kinds of humans and animals have not been identified to justify a difference in treatment or consideration, it is wrong to harm animals for these purposes also.

  • "The 'Babe' Vegetarians: Bioethics, Animal Minds and Moral Methodology," for Movies and Bioethics (Johns Hopkins Press, 2007), Sandra Shapshay, Editor. (forthcoming)