DOCSLIB.ORG

Kant on Duties to Animals

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Kant on Duties to Animals University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Faculty Publications - Department of Philosophy Philosophy, Department of 2005 Kant on Duties to Animals Nelson T. Potter Jr. University of Nebraska - Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/philosfacpub Part of the Continental Philosophy Commons, and the Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons Potter, Nelson T. Jr., "Kant on Duties to Animals" (2005). Faculty Publications - Department of Philosophy. 18. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/philosfacpub/18 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Philosophy, Department of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications - Department of Philosophy by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Potter in Jarbuch für Recht und Ethik (2005) 13. Copyright 2005, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg. Used by permission. Kant on Duties to Animals Nelson Potter According to Kant we human beings are finite rational beings, who also have an animal nature. Kant occasionally speculates that perhaps on other planets there may be quite different sorts of finite rational animals. But of course we have no specific knowledge of any such. Given that fact, all of our duties are duties to other human beings. We can have no duties to God because he is not an object of possible experience. There are no human beings such that they have only duties and no rights - they would be slaves or serfs. And the apparent duties that we have to abstain from cruel treatment of (nonhuman) animals are, it turns out, not direct duties to such animals, but duties to ourselves, and merely indirect duties with regard to animals. "Duties to animals" in the Kantian context is an issue about the scope of moral­ i~y. Does our "moral community" include non-human animals or not? Kant's ver­ sI~n ~f the moral community seems to be the kingdom of ends, and it is clear that thIS kingdom includes only finite rational beings like you or me, dear reader. There are arguably two versions of the issue of duties to animals: the legal and the ethi­ cal. Perhaps there were no laws in Kant's day against cruelty to animals, but such laws since Kant's day have been widespread at least among European and Ameri­ can societies for well over a century. The ethical question would ask whether we h.ave ethical duties to abstain from cruelty to animals (apart from any legal provi­ SIOns) for which we should be moved to action by inner moral motivation. Such dul'Ies would be analogous to the ethical duties we have that underI'Ie I.aws agamst :sault or theft, or they could be analogous to the imperfe~t duties we. have ~o pro- ote the welfare ofothers and render assistance to others m need, dutIes WhICh are not enforced by laws. But there would be no direct duties to animals, either legal or ethical, if animals were outside the scope of morality. We will return to these two elements ofduties to animals at a later point. The answers to such questions of the scope of morality must b~ a part ~f our Un?erstanding of Kant's practical philosophy, alongside other such Issues as Impu­ tatIon, freedom, and criminal punishment that have been of concern to Professor Hru~chka in his many contributions to understanding that philosophy, and more partICUlarly Kant's philosophy of law. When Kant states his claim about our having only indirect duties to ani.mals, he makes similar statements about our having indirect duties also to beauty 10 plants Nelson in Jarbuch für 300 Nelson Potter and lifeless nature, neither of which should be wantonly destroyed. But in ,this paper I will confine my attention to his views on animals, for they raise qu~St1O~S that plants or lifeless beauty do not. And to further focus our attention, I wIll dis­ cuss Kant's duties to animals only in relation to what I'll call paradigm an~mals, i.e., animals to whom we surely have duties, if we have duties to any ammals. Most or all invertebrates would be excluded as non-paradigm, because they do not have nervous systems well enough integrated to undergo pain and suffering in the way that is all too familiar to us humans. Paradigm animals will be larger, more familiar animals, mostly mammals, whom we humans often deal with or make use of in one way or another: dogs, cats, cattle, horses, oxen, rabbits, mink, perhaps chickens, and so forth. If we have duties to any animals, we have duties to such as them, it seems reasonable to say, and the main extension of scope of duties w~ are interested in here is the extension from humans to these most promising ammal candidates for being bearers of such rights. How far we might seek to exten.d duties to animals beyond these animal paradigms is a complicated topic that IS beyond the scope of this paper. There is a further related complication I want to declare beyond the scope ,of this paper. There are certain non-human animals who are similar enough and m­ deed in an evolutionary sense close enough to us to raise questions about whether they might be in some significant way rational beings. Think of chimpanzees, bonobos, or perhaps dolphins, whales, or gorillas. It is sometimes argued that ?e­ cause some of these creatures are so similar to human beings, the constnunts against scientific experiments upon human subjects should also be applied to them, Or to take such even more difficult hypothetical cases about which our knowle~ge ct is limited: what should we say about our ethical relations with the various extm , f . deed have speCIes a Homo erectus or Homo neanderthalis? Such creatures may III , been semi-human, and limited in their capabilities in the way racists used to claUD that humans of other races were. Such creatures would have been similar enough to us humans to raise difficult questions about where to draw a line distinguishing between human and nonhuman, and yet they would be more different from us than any individual Homo sapiens. por This whole issue of duties to animals might seem like a peripheral and un!m ­ tant question for Kant's ethical theory. Kant himself only briefly and occaslOnally alludes to it. And there is not much substantive nonnative disagreement between Kant and moderate opponents ofcruel treatment ofanimals. Kant thinks it is wrong wantonIy to .mfl"lCt pam on alllmals., Some might say that given Kant's pOSI't'lOn that such duties are only indirect, it will not be possible for him finally to arrive at an adequately robust set of norms in opposition to animal cruelty. I have my doubts about this; that is, it seems to me that one might develop an adequately robust,th~O­ ry ~f opposition to animal cruelty based only on indirect duties, But again thiS IS a tOPiC that we will put to one side for the purposes ofthe present paper. Kant tells us that he thinks it is all right to raise animals for meat, and to ~se them for labor (drawing plows or wagons). He expresses his doubts about infhct- Nelson in Jarbuch für Kant on Duties to Animals 301 ing experiments on animals, but I suspect this is because such experiments as he heard of were idle and purposeless, and if this is correct then we should not be confident that he would oppose modem medical experiments generally. My own view is that it is morally acceptable to raise animals for human consumption - at least so far as any duties to such animals are concerned, provided they are raised in humane conditions and put to death as quickly and painlessly as possible. So I count myself as a moderate along with Kant on this issue. According to such a view there are duties to animals, and surely direct duties, but they are not broad enough to force us to be moral vegetarians, at least so long as we can have access to humanely raised and slaughtered meat. I call such a view "moderate," placing it between strontg animal rights views that ground opposition to the use of slaugh­ tered animals for their meat or other uses, and opposition to much experimentation using animals, and, on the other side, the Cartesian tradition, which regards ani­ mals as machines incapapble of the experience of pain. Another basis for a duty of moral vegetarianism that is unrelated to the moral status of animals may be that it is unjustifiably extravagant to feed grain and other foods to meat animals that might directly nourish humans who are in want of nutrition, because the luxury of some humans eating meat may deprive others of needed nutrition. But I mention these issues only to put them aside here, after having used them to explain what I mean by Kant's taking a moderate position on ethical treatment of animals. The Kantian main texts that I wish to consider are from his Metaplzysics of Morals. The first comes from the introduction to the first part of that work, the Reclztslehre. Kant offers a "Division in accordance with the relation of the subject imposing Obligation to the subject put under obligation." [MS, VI: 241. Notes to Kant's text will be given as references to the volume and page of Kants gesam­ melte Schrijten, herausgegeben von der Koniglich PreuBischen Akademie der Wis­ senschaften, Berlin, 1907 and later. MS abbreviates Metaplzysik der Sitten.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Of Becoming and Remaining Vegetarian
    Wang, Yahong (2020) Vegetarians in modern Beijing: food, identity and body techniques in everyday experience. PhD thesis. http://theses.gla.ac.uk/77857/ Copyright and moral rights for this work are retained by the author A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge This work cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the author The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given Enlighten: Theses https://theses.gla.ac.uk/ [email protected] Vegetarians in modern Beijing: Food, identity and body techniques in everyday experience Yahong Wang B.A., M.A. Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy School of Social and Political Sciences College of Social Sciences University of Glasgow March 2019 1 Abstract This study investigates how self-defined vegetarians in modern Beijing construct their identity through everyday experience in the hope that it may contribute to a better understanding of the development of individuality and self-identity in Chinese society in a post-traditional order, and also contribute to understanding the development of the vegetarian movement in a non-‘Western’ context. It is perhaps the first scholarly attempt to study the vegetarian community in China that does not treat it as an Oriental phenomenon isolated from any outside influence.
    [Show full text]
  • Living with Animals Conference Co-Organized by Robert W. Mitchell, Radhika N
    Living with Animals Conference Co-organized by Robert W. Mitchell, Radhika N. Makecha, & Michał Piotr Pręgowski Eastern Kentucky University, 19-21 March 2015 Cover design: Kasey L. Morris Conference overview Each day begins with a keynote speaker, and follows with two tracks (in separate locations) that will run concurrently. Breakfast foods and coffee/tea/water will be available prior to the morning keynotes. Coffee breaks (i.e., snacks and coffee/tea/water) are scheduled between sequential groups of talks. Thus, for example, if one session is from 9:05-10:15, and the next session is 10:40-11:40, there is a coffee break from 10:15-10:40. Drinks and edibles should be visible at or near the entry to the rooms where talks are held. Book display: Throughout the conference in Library Room 201, there is a book display. Several university presses have generously provided books for your perusal (as well as order sheets), and some conference participants will be displaying their books as well. Thursday features the “Living with Horses” sessions, as well as concurrent sessions, and has an optional (pre-paid) trip to Berea for shopping and dinner at the Historic Boone Tavern Restaurant. Friday features the “Teaching with Animals” sessions throughout the morning and early afternoon (which includes a boxed lunch during panel discussions and a movie showing and discussion); “Living with Animals” sessions continuing in the late afternoon, and a Conference Dinner at Masala Indian restaurant. Saturday includes “Living with Animals” sessions throughout the day and Poster Presentations during a buffet lunch. In addition, there is the optional trip to the White Hall State Historic Site (you pay when you arrive at the site).
    [Show full text]
  • The Principle of Solidarity : a Restatement of John Rawls' Law Of
    DISSERTATION: THE PRINCIPLE OF SOLIDARITY: A RESTATEMENT OF JOHN RAWLS´ LAW OF PEOPLES ZUR ERLANGUNG DES AKADEMISCHEN GRADES DOCTOR PHILOSOPHIAE (DR. PHIL) VON MILICA TRIFUNOVIĆ EINGEREICHT IM DEZEMBER 2011. AN DER PHILOSOPHISCHEN FAKULTÄT I DER HUMBOLDT-UNIVERSITÄT ZU BERLIN PRÄSIDENT DER HUMBOLDT-UNIVERSITÄT ZU BERLIN: PROF. DR. JAN-HENDRIK OLBERTZ DEKAN: PROF. MICHAEL SEADLE GUTACHTER: 1. PROF. DR. VOLKER GERHARDT 2. PROF. DR. WULF KELLERWESSEL TAG DER MÜNDLICHEN PRÜFUNG: 20. JUNI 2012. 1 CONTENT CHAPTER ONE.............................................................................................................................................5 Instead of Introduction: Global Justice Debate- Conceptions and Misconceptions........................................5 1. Global Justice Debate – Conceptions and Misconceptions............................................................5 1.1. CONCEPTUAL ANALYSES....................................................................................................6 1.1.1. Aristotelian Paradigm................................................................................................7 1.1.2. Rawlsian Paradigm ...................................................................................................9 1.1.3. Aristotelian and Rawlsian Paradigm in A Global Context .......................................13 1.2. METHODOLOGICAL ANALYSIS ...........................................................................................21 1.2.1. Political Constructivism in a Global Context............................................................22
    [Show full text]
  • Re-Defining an Open Future
    Re-defining an Open Future The Child’s Right to an Open Future revisited from a Virtue-Ethics perspective Jenny Murdoch Submitted to the University of Hertfordshire in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of MA by Research, March 2014. There is much philosophical ambiguity about the concept of autonomy and, relatedly, about what it might mean to provide children with an open (or autonomous) future. This ambiguity leads to controversy about whether an agent’s right of self- determination can be violated during childhood. By supplementing the deontological argument for the child’s right to an open future with ideas from Virtue Ethics, I hope to illustrate the importance of autonomy, not just for well-being but also, for genuine ethical understanding. Consequently, I hope to provide a more comprehensive and satisfying account of the kind of autonomous ethical understanding that we ought to nurture in children. The kind of ethical understanding that I have in mind must include a conception of ethical life that is reflective, personally motivated, and which is able to include everything that might matter to human beings. Jenny Murdoch 2 Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 4 I. The Deontological Argument for the Child’s Right to an Open Future ................................. 6 Rights-in-Trust & The Child’s Right to an Open Future ......................................................... 6 The Paradoxes
    [Show full text]
  • Human Dignity in Contemporary Law and in the Transnational Discourse Luís Roberto Barroso
    Boston College International and Comparative Law Review Volume 35 | Issue 2 Article 2 5-1-2012 Here, There, and Everywhere: Human Dignity in Contemporary Law and in the Transnational Discourse Luís Roberto Barroso Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/iclr Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, and the Human Rights Law Commons Recommended Citation Luís R. Barroso, Here, There, and Everywhere: Human Dignity in Contemporary Law and in the Transnational Discourse, 35 B.C. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 331 (2012), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/iclr/vol35/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College International and Comparative Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. HERE, THERE, AND EVERYWHERE: HUMAN DIGNITY IN CONTEMPORARY LAW AND IN THE TRANSNATIONAL DISCOURSE Luís Roberto Barroso* Abstract: Over the past several decades, human dignity has become an omnipresent idea in contemporary law. This Article surveys the use of human dignity by domestic and international courts and describes the concept’s growing role in the transnational discourse, with special atten- tion paid to the case law of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Article examines the legal nature of human dignity, finding it to be a constitutional princi- ple rather than a freestanding fundamental right, and develops a unifying and universal identity for the concept. At its core, human dignity contains three elements—intrinsic value, autonomy, and community value—and each element has unique legal implications.
    [Show full text]
  • APA Newsletters
    APA Newsletters Volume 06, Number 1 Fall 2006 NEWSLETTER ON PHILOSOPHY AND LAW FROM THE EDITORS, JOHN ARTHUR & STEVEN SCALET ARTICLES ROBERT F. SCHOPP “Expressing Condemnation that Fits the Crime” TERRY L. PRICE “Feinberg’s Offense Principle and the Danish Cartoons of Muhammad” CHRISTOPHER KNAPP “Harm and Homicide” CHRISTOPHER GRIFFIN “Jury Nullification, Democracy, and the Expressive Function” PATRICK BOLEYN-FITZGERALD “Liberalism, Euthanasia, and the Right to be Eaten” © 2006 by The American Philosophical Association ISSN: 1067-9464 APA NEWSLETTER ON Philosophy and Law John Arthur & Steven Scalet, Co-Editors Fall 2006 Volume 06, Number 1 FROM THE EDITORS ARTICLES Edition in Tribute to Joel Feinberg Expressing Condemnation that Fits the Crime This edition honors the legacy of Joel Feinberg and continues Robert F. Schopp the normative and conceptual analysis that animated his life’s University of Nebraska–Lincoln College of Law work. Joel died in 2004 from complications arising from his long I. Introduction struggle with Parkinson’s disease. As attested through the many obituaries and remembrances written in his honor, his writing In one of his widely recognized works, Joel Feinberg provides is widely regarded among the finest work that contemporary a conceptual analysis of punishment that emphasizes the social and legal philosophy has ever produced. expression of condemnation as a central element that distinguishes punishment from other penalties and serves Always a gentleman, beloved by students and faculty, several important social functions of punishment.1 In this Joel had the remarkable philosophical virtue of a kindly analysis, Feinberg explicitly rejects the familiar notion that manner combined with a dry wit.
    [Show full text]
  • Anthrozoology and Sharks, Looking at How Human-Shark Interactions Have Shaped Human Life Over Time
    Anthrozoology and Public Perception: Humans and Great White Sharks (Carchardon carcharias) on Cape Cod, Massachusetts, USA Jessica O’Toole A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Marine Affairs University of Washington 2020 Committee: Marc L. Miller, Chair Vincent F. Gallucci Program Authorized to Offer Degree School of Marine and Environmental Affairs © Copywrite 2020 Jessica O’Toole 2 University of Washington Abstract Anthrozoology and Public Perception: Humans and Great White Sharks (Carchardon carcharias) on Cape Cod, Massachusetts, USA Jessica O’Toole Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Dr. Marc L. Miller School of Marine and Environmental Affairs Anthrozoology is a relatively new field of study in the world of academia. This discipline, which includes researchers ranging from social studies to natural sciences, examines human-animal interactions. Understanding what affect these interactions have on a person’s perception of a species could be used to create better conservation strategies and policies. This thesis uses a mixed qualitative methodology to examine the public perception of great white sharks on Cape Cod, Massachusetts. While the area has a history of shark interactions, a shark related death in 2018 forced many people to re-evaluate how they view sharks. Not only did people express both positive and negative perceptions of the animals but they also discussed how the attack caused them to change their behavior in and around the ocean. Residents also acknowledged that the sharks were not the only problem living in the ocean. They often blame seals for the shark attacks, while also claiming they are a threat to the fishing industry.
    [Show full text]
  • Journal of Animal Law 2005.01.Pdf
    VOL. I 2005 JOURNAL OF ANIMAL LAW Michigan State University College of Law J O U R N A L O F A N I M A L L A W VOL. I 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION The Gathering Momentum…………………………………………………………………. 1 David Favre ARTICLES & ESSAYS Non-Economic Damages: Where does it get us and how do we get there? ……………….. 7 Sonia Waisman A new movement in tort law seeks to provide money damages to persons losing a companion animal. These non-compensatory damages are highly controversial, and spark a debate as to whether such awards are the best thing for the animals—or for the lawyers. Would a change in the property status of companion animals better solve this important and emotional legal question? Invented Cages: The Plight of Wild Animals in Captivity ………………………………... 23 Anuj Shah & Alyce Miller The rate of private possession of wild animals in the United States has escalated in recent years. Laws at the federal, state, and local levels remain woefully inadequate to the task of addressing the treatment and welfare of the animals themselves and many animals “slip through the cracks,” resulting in abuse, neglect, and often death. This article explores numerous facets of problems inherent in the private possession of exotic animals. The Recent Development of Portugese Law in the Field of Animal Rights ………………. 61 Professor Fernando Arajúo Portugal has had a long and bloody tradition of violence against animals, not the least of which includes Spanish-style bullfighting that has shown itself to be quite resistant to legal, cultural, and social reforms that would respect the right of animals to be free from suffering.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy of Law Soazig Le Bihan University of Montana - Missoula, [email protected]
    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Syllabi Course Syllabi Spring 2-1-2018 PHL 492.01: Philosophy of Law Soazig Le Bihan University of Montana - Missoula, [email protected] Let us know how access to this document benefits ouy . Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/syllabi Recommended Citation Le Bihan, Soazig, "PHL 492.01: Philosophy of Law" (2018). Syllabi. 7858. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/syllabi/7858 This Syllabus is brought to you for free and open access by the Course Syllabi at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Syllabi by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LAW 664, PHILOSOPHY OF LAW (SPRING 2018) Tue. & Thu., LAW 215; Prof. Johnstone (Rm. 312) & Prof. Lebihan (with Prof. Huff) In the practice of law, according to Karl Llewellyn, “Ideals without technique are a mess. But technique without ideals is a menace.” This course aims to provide a vocabulary of ideals to help answer a question that arises throughout the practice of legal technique: What is Law? The course begins with a short history of the rule of law as an ideal in the United States. It turns to the development of various theories of law, framed as a continuing debate among competing conceptions of law. It then integrates the application of legal theory to legal practice in several areas of student interest. In addition to seminar discussion, students produce short commentaries on current issues and a research paper or other project.
    [Show full text]
  • Harm to Self. by Joel Feinberg. John Stick
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Constitutional Commentary 1988 Book Review: Harm to Self. by Joel Feinberg. John Stick Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Stick, John, "Book Review: Harm to Self. by Joel Feinberg." (1988). Constitutional Commentary. 507. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm/507 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Constitutional Commentary collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1988] BOOK REVIEW 521 HARM TO SELF. By Joel Feinberg.! New York, N.Y.: Ox­ ford University Press. 1986. Pp. xxiii, 420. $29.95. John Stick2 For all the fanfares and fears that have heralded the rise of interdisciplinary studies in legal academia, constitutional lawyers and political philosophers still tend to do their everyday work in isolation from each other. The use of political philosophy in consti­ tutionallaw is identified with the construction of grand theory: one looks to philosophy for the sweeping generalization that will put all the chaotic holdings together as pieces of a smooth arch, or for the indisputable foundation for a stinging criticism of the Supreme Court's latest failure to protect a fundamental right. Philosophy is at least as useful to lawyers, however, for the more mundane task of generating examples and subtle distinctions that are helpful in the manipulation of doctrine. Professor Joel Feinberg's Harm to Self, the third of four volumes in his series The Moral Limits ofthe Crim­ inal Law, is not grand theory, but will nevertheless repay careful examination by any constitutional lawyer interested in paternalism and its corollary issues: consent, voluntariness, coercion, duress, unconscionability, and assumption of risk.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Naive Thoughts About Justice and Mercy
    Some Naive Thoughts About Justice and Mercy David Dolinko* A longstandingphilosophicalpuzzlesurrounds the relationshipbetween justice and mercy. For example, a judge sentencing a convicted defendant is under an obligation to impose a just sentence. At the same time, it is thought proper-indeed, meritorious-forthe judge, in an appropriatecase, to show mercy, taking account of specialfactorspresent in the case to conclude that she should impose a sentence more lenient than what "strictjustice" would callfor. But doesn't this mean that her merciful sentence must be unjust? The presentpaper, after reviewing the problem, suggests what might be a solution-at least for the use of "mercy" in judicial contexts-and examines some of the difficulties itfaces. The puzzling relationship between justice and mercy has bedeviled philosophers since Aristotle.' Mercy is ordinarily conceived as a virtue, as a free gift rather than something to which one has a right or entitlement, and as something distinct from justice (to which, of course, one does have a right). In appropriate cases mercy "tempers" justice, producing a different outcome than justice alone would call for. Yet isn't a deliberate departure from the requirements ofjustice an injustice? Jeffrie Murphy summarizes the puzzle well: [I]f we simply use the term "mercy" to refer to certain of the demands of justice (e.g., the demand for individuation), then mercy ceases to be an autonomous virtue and instead becomes a part of. justice. It thus becomes obligatory, and all the talk about gifts, acts of grace, supererogation, and compassion becomes quite beside the point. If, on the other hand, mercy is totally different from justice and actually requires (or permits) that justice sometimes be set aside, it then counsels injustice.
    [Show full text]
  • Essays in Legal and Political Theory by Joel Feinberg (Book Review) Kevin P
    Campbell University School of Law Scholarly Repository @ Campbell University School of Law Other Publications Faculty Scholarship 2005 Problems at the Roots of Law: Essays in Legal and Political Theory by Joel Feinberg (book review) Kevin P. Lee Campbell University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.campbell.edu/fac_pubs Recommended Citation Kevin Lee, Problems at the Roots of Law: Essays in Legal and Political Theory, The Review of Metaphysics, June 2005, at 885 (book review). This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Scholarly Repository @ Campbell University School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Other Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Repository @ Campbell University School of Law. SUMMARIESAND COMMENTS 889 however, demand a repudiation of the justificationist's general princi ples. "He will still hold that a statement about the past can be true only in virtue of an actual or possible direct observation of it. But he will take a more realist attitude to whether such a direct verification was or could have been carried out" (p. 70). "The Metaphysics of Time" offers a stimulating discussion of the four possible metaphysical positions regarding the present, past, and future: (1) only the present is real; (2) the future is real, but the past is not; (3) the past is part of reality, the future is not; (4) the past and future are both real. Dummett offers trenchant objections to the arguments of the first three positions and then defends the reality of past and future as "regions of reality determined, at any given moment by our temporal perspective, as it is at that moment" (p.
    [Show full text]