Book Description

From Publishers Weekly Readers with a bent for pondering complex questions of ethics and morality, especially those relating to environmental objects, will find this book a challenge. Stone, author of Should Trees Have Standing?Towards Legal Rights for Natural Objects, addresses the status, under law, of 'Nonpersons' (rivers, forests, animals, androids) and searches for a fresh concept of morality and ethics that will include them. He reminds us that animals can do harm but not wrong, and that legal consideration of nonpersons or things does not give them legal rights. He examines unorthodox viewpoints on the subject, questions the 'Moral Monism' of the Kantians and develops his own scheme, 'Moral Pluralism.' Though he offers specific examples as illustration for his thesis, much of the narrative is too abstruse for readers untrained in law or philosophy. This is an extremely important subject that needs to be popularized. Copyright 1987 Reed Business Information, Inc. Read more From Library Journal Stone, a law professor at the University of Southern California, authored the justly celebrated essay 'Should Trees Have Standing?Towards Legal Rights for Natural Objects.' His current book is the outcome of more than a dozen years of hard thinking about environmental issues. Rejecting all single-framework ethical theories such as utilitarianism and Kantianism, Stone argues forcefully for a pluralism that views each of the competing theories as a sometimes-appropriate 'map' for the solution of moral quandaries. Despite its title, this is primarily a deep essay in pure moral theory. Accordingly, it will probably find a more receptive audience among philosophers than among lawyers, environmentalists, or animal welfare activists. Sidney Gendin, Philosophy Dept., Eastern Michigan Univ., YpsilantiCopyright 1987 Reed Business Information, Inc. Read more

Comments