Both its defenders and detractorshave described the argument from marginal cases as the most importantto date in defense of animal rights. Hotly debated among philosophersfor some twenty years, the argument concludes that no morally relevantcharacteristic distinguishes human beings–including infants, theseverely retarded, the comatose, and other "marginal cases"--fromany other animals.Babies and Beasts presentsthe first book-length exploration of the broad range of views relatingto the argument from marginal cases and sorts out and evaluates its varioususes and abuses.Daniel Dombrowski analyzesthe views of many who are prominent in the debate--Peter Singer, Thomas Regan, H. J. McCloskey, Jan Narveson, John Rawls,R. G. Frey, Peter Carruthers, Michael Leahy, Robert Nozick, and JamesRachels are included--in a volume that will be essential to philosophers,animal rights activists, those who work in clinical settings, and otherswho must sometimes deal with "marginal cases."

Both its defenders and detractorshave described the argument from marginal cases as the most importantto date in defense of animal rights. Hotly debated among philosophersfor some twenty years, the argument concludes that no morally relevantcharacteristic distinguishes human beings–including infants, theseverely retarded, the comatose, and other "marginal cases"--fromany other animals.Babies and Beasts presentsthe first book-length exploration of the broad range of views relatingto the argument from marginal cases and sorts out and evaluates its varioususes and abuses.Daniel Dombrowski analyzesthe views of many who are prominent in the debate--Peter Singer, Thomas Regan, H. J. McCloskey, Jan Narveson, John Rawls,R. G. Frey, Peter Carruthers, Michael Leahy, Robert Nozick, and JamesRachels are included--in a volume that will be essential to philosophers,animal rights activists, those who work in clinical settings, and otherswho must sometimes deal with "marginal cases."