Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 1
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Tanner, Julia 2011. Rowlands, Rawlsian Justice and Animal Experimentation. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, Vol. 14, Issue. 5, p. 569.


The marginal cases argument: Animals matter too


If we are going to treat other species so very differently from our own — killing, eating and experimenting on pigs and sheep, for example, but never human beings — then it seems we need to come up with some morally relevant difference between us and them that justifies this difference in treatment. Otherwise it appears we are guilty of bigotry (in just the same way that someone who discriminates on the basis of race or sex is guilty of bigotry). But what is this morally relevant difference? Julia Tanner's article examines, and rejects, some of the most popular answers to this question.

Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

R. G. Frey , ‘Animal Rights’, Analysis, 37, (1977), p. 188.

Dale Jamieson and Tom Regan , ‘Animal Rights: A Reply to FreyAnalysis, 38, (1978), p. 35.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

  • ISSN: 1477-1756
  • EISSN: 1755-1196
  • URL: /core/journals/think
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *