Talk:Argument from marginal cases

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.

Animal rights High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Animal rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Animal rightsTemplate:WikiProject Animal rightsAnimal rights articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Logic / Ethics Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Start

This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic
	Ethics

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

November 2006 edit

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)Reply

Slippery Slope edit

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Its proponents hold that if animals do not have direct moral status due to their lack of rationality or other psychic ability, then neither do other members of society such as infants, the senile, the comatose, and the cognitively disabled, since there is no known ability that those marginal-case humans have that other animals lack.

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)Reply

--Owi 09:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Add topic