More than twenty years after its original publication, _The Case for Animal Rights _is an acknowledged classic of moral philosophy, and its author is recognized as the intellectual leader of the animal rights movement. In a new and fully considered preface, Regan responds to his critics and defends the book's revolutionary position.

This article tries to study the evolution of the place and significance of the term “fiction” in Bentham’s critical strategy against English law. If, in an initial phase, Bentham uses fictions to bring to light mystification operating in English law, he then attacks the theories that sought to justify and ground political society and law. Bentham proposes a foundation justified with the help of the principle of utility, which he presents as a “fundamental axiom” that needs no proof. Paradoxically, his (...) argumentation, taken as a whole, becomes intrinsically problematical on recognizing the inevitable linguistic necessity of fictions and the fictitious character of utility: every legal discourse will, in consequence, invoke the fictions that it previously criticised. He must therefore refine his theory of fictions and construct its positivity with the aim of drawing up a legal discourse that satisfies the demands of his theory of law. (shrink)

ABSTRACTThis paper focuses on unveiling the underlying conceptions required to elaborate a concept such as indirect legislation, and on possible methods of distinguishing it from direct legislation. Three elements will be put to the test to analyse whether they could be used as distinguishing criteria. Firstly, indirect legislation – like contemporary forms of indirect means to influence behaviours, such as the famous nudges of Thaler and Sunstein – relies heavily on an accurate and complete account of human nature. However, so (...) does direct legislation. Having human psychology as a foundation for legislation leads to several epistemic and evidential issues. Secondly, temporality seems initially to be a likely candidate for the sought for criterion: direct legislation, through punishment, applies after the offence, whereas indirect legislation applies before the offence, precisely in order to prevent it. However, I will show that this understanding needs to be revised. Thirdly, the solution to the difficulty might lie in resolving the issue of what is really the target of influence: what is it that indirect means attempt to modify. At the end of this paper, I will show that the difficulties faced both by Bentham and by contemporary nudge theory seem to imply that a complete re-evaluation of indirect means to influence behaviour is needed. (shrink)

This dissertation is a critical examination and rejection of the two principal types of moral justification, the compensatory and noncompensatory, of affirmative action involving preferential treatment for blacks, Hispanics,American Indians, and women in hiring, promotions, andadmissions. Neither of these approaches to the justification of AA, I have argued, is able to defend AA successfully. AA not morally justified. Thus, succeeding compensatory arguments for AA, individualand group oriented, are unable to evade, undermine,or disarm the objections that AA violates the principles of (...) compensatory justice governing who is owed compensation, what compensation is owed, and who owes compensation, and that AA violates the principles of justice and fundamental individual moral rights governing the distribution of such social goods or benefits as desirable and valuable positions. The principles of justice and moral rights violated by AA govern the distribution of social benefits, including desirable positions, and burdens and systematize, unify, and explain correct moral judgments about the injustice of actions, policies, and practices in a variety of contexts of distribution. Moreover, backward-looking or compensatory arguments for AA have the implication that unjust and morally unacceptable compensatory policies that are morally similar to AA would be justified in contexts other than hiring, promotions, and admissions. Furthermore, the noncompensatory justifications of AA, including meritocratic and utilitarian forward-looking arguments, are unable to evade or to undermine the objection that AA violates principles of justice and fundamental individual moral rights and the objection that these attempted justifications of AA have the implication that unjust and morally unacceptable noncompensatory, forward-looking policies that are morally similar to AA would also be justified in contexts other than the standard ones. (shrink)