Babies and Beasts: The Argument from Marginal Cases

      Both its defenders and detractors
        have described the argument from marginal cases as the most important
        to date in defense of animal rights. Hotly debated among philosophers
        for some twenty years, the argument concludes that no morally relevant
        characteristic distinguishes human beings–including infants, the
        severely retarded, the comatose, and other "marginal cases"--from
        any other animals.
      Babies and Beasts presents
        the first book-length exploration of the broad range of views relating
        to the argument from marginal cases and sorts out and evaluates its various
        uses and abuses.
      Daniel Dombrowski analyzes
        the 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 James
        Rachels are included--in a volume that will be essential to philosophers,
        animal rights activists, those who work in clinical settings, and others
        who must sometimes deal with "marginal cases."