Works by James Rachels
68 found
Order:
1 filter applied
DisambiguationsDisambiguations:
| James Rachels [75] | James Webster Rachels [1] |
- (1 other version)Active and passive euthanasia.James Rachels -2000 - In Steven M. Cahn,Exploring Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology. New York, NY, United States of America: Oxford University Press USA.
- Created from animals: the moral implications of Darwinism.James Rachels -1990 - New York: Oxford University Press.From Bishop Wilberforce in the 1860s to the advocates of "creation science" today, defenders of traditional mores have condemned Darwin's theory of evolution as a threat to society's values. Darwin's defenders, like Stephen Jay Gould, have usually replied that there is no conflict between science and religion--that values and biological facts occupy separate realms. But as James Rachels points out in this thought-provoking study, Darwin himself would disagree with Gould. Darwin, who had once planned on being a clergyman, was convinced (...) that natural selection overthrew our age-old religious beliefs. Created from Animals offers a provocative look at how Darwinian evolution undermines many tenets of traditional philosophy and religion. James Rachels begins by examining Darwin's own life and work, presenting an astonishingly vivid and compressed biography. We see Darwin's studies of the psychological links in evolution (such as emotions in dogs, and the "mental powers" of worms), and how he addressed the moral implications of his work, especially in his concern for the welfare of animals. Rachels goes on to present a lively and accessible survey of the controversies that followed in Darwin's wake, ranging from Herbert Spencer's Social Darwinism to Edward O. Wilson's sociobiology, and discusses how the work of such influential intellects as Descartes, Hume, Kant, T.H. Huxley, Henri Bergson, B.F. Skinner, and Stephen Jay Gould has contributed to--or been overthrown by--evolutionary science. Western philosophy and religion, Rachels argues, have been shaken by the implications of Darwin's work, most notably the controversial idea that humans are simply a more complex kind of animal. Rachels assesses a number of studies that suggest how closely humans are linked to other primates in behavior, and then goes on to show how this idea undercuts the work of many prominent philosophers. Kant's famous argument that suicide reduces one to the level of an animal, for instance, is meaningless if humans are, in fact, animals. Indeed, humanity's membership in the animal kingdom calls into question the classic notions of human dignity and the sacredness of human life. What we need now, Rachels contends, is a philosophy that does not discriminate between different species, one that addresses each being on an individual basis. With this sweeping survey of the arguments, the philosophers, and the deep implications surrounding Darwinism, Rachels lays the foundations for a new view of morality. Vibrantly written and provocatively argued, Created from Animals offers a new perspective on issues ranging from suicide to euthanasia to animal rights. (shrink)
- Why privacy is important.James Rachels -1975 -Philosophy and Public Affairs 4 (4):323-333.
- The End of Life: Euthanasia and Morality.James Rachels -1986 - Oxford University Press.In this provocative book, a professor of philosophy examines the arguments for and against euthanasia, analyzes specific case studies, including those of Baby Jane Doe and Barney Clark, and offers an alternate theory on the morality of euthanasia. Various traditional distinctions--between "human" and "non-human," intentional and nonintentional, killing and "letting die"--are taken into account to determine whether euthanasia is permissible or not. Rachels presents a systematic argument against the traditional view, defending an alternative position based on the belief that there (...) is a profound difference between having a life and merely being alive. (shrink)
- Created From Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism.James RACHELS -1990 -Environmental Values 1 (1):83-86.
- (4 other versions)The Expanding Circle: Ethics and Sociobiology.James Rachels &Peter Singer -1981 -Hastings Center Report 11 (5):45.Book reviewed in this article: The Expanding Circle: Ethics and Sociobiology. By Peter Singer.
- (1 other version)The challenge of cultural relativism.James Rachels -2000 - In Steven M. Cahn,Exploring Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology. New York, NY, United States of America: Oxford University Press USA.
- Killing and Starving to Death.James Rachels -1979 -Philosophy 54 (208):159 - 171.Although we do not know exactly how many people die each year of malnutrition or related health problems, the number is very high, in the millions. By giving money to support famine relief efforts, each of us could save at least some of them. By not giving, we let them die.
- Can Ethics Provide Answers?James Rachels -1980 -Hastings Center Report 10 (3):32-40.
- Killing and letting die.James Rachels -2001 - In Lawrence C. Becker & Charlotte Becker,Encyclopedia of Ethics, 2nd edition. Routledge.Is it worse to kill someone than to let someone die? It seems obvious to common sense that it is worse. We allow people to die, for example, when we fail to contribute money to famine-relief efforts; but even if we feel somewhat guilty, we do not consider ourselves murderers. Nor do we feel like accessories to murder when we fail to give blood, sign an organ-donor card, or do any of the other things that could save lives. Common sense (...) tells us that, while we may not kill people, our duty to give them aid is much more limited. Some philosophers, however, have argued that common sense is wrong about this. They have defended the Equivalence Thesis, which says that killing and letting die are equally bad. This is a more specific version of the idea that there is no moral difference between making something happen and allowing it to happen. The Equivalence Thesis is a radical conception that would require changes in our ordinary moral beliefs. If it is true, then obviously our duty to give aid is much stronger than we commonly assume. But our views about other matters, such as euthanasia, will also be affected. Many people believe that “passive euthanasia”--allowing terminal patients to die, rather than pointlessly prolonging their lives--is sometimes permissible; but they also believe that killing patients is always wrong. If the Equivalence Thesis is true, this combination of beliefs is inconsistent. The idea behind the Equivalence Thesis is not that every individual case of letting die is equally as bad as every individual case of killing. Obviously, if we compare an ordinary murder--say, a man killing his wife out of jealousy--with the actions of a physician who humanely permits a suffering patient to die, the murder is much worse. Rather, the idea is that the difference between killing and letting die does not itself make a difference to the moral assessment of the actions. Other factors may still be important. (shrink)
- Drawing lines.James Rachels -2004 - In Cass R. Sunstein & Martha Craven Nussbaum,Animal rights: current debates and new directions. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 162--174.
- Do Animals Have a Right to Liberty.James Rachels -1989 - In Tom Regan & Peter Singer,Animal Rights and Human Obligations. Cambridge University Press. pp. 205-223.
- Can Ethics Provide Answers?: And Other Essays in Moral Philosophy.James Rachels -1996 - Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Esteemed moral philosopher James Rachels here collects fifteen essays, some classic and others extensively revised, on the nature and limits of moral reasoning. Rachels argues that, rather than simply expressing societal conventions, moral philosophy can subvert received opinion and replace it with something better. Combining a concern for ethical theory with a discussion of practical moral issues such as euthanasia, the rights of animals, privacy, and affirmative action. Can Ethics Provide Answers is an excellent collection for students, scholars, and anyone (...) concerned with the degree to which our principles can guide our policies. (shrink)
- (1 other version)The right thing to do: basic readings in moral philosophy.James Rachels (ed.) -2015 - New York, New York: McGraw-Hill Education.Anthology of readings in moral philosophy.
- God and human attitudes: James Rachels.James Rachels -1971 -Religious Studies 7 (4):325-337.Kneeling down or grovelling on the ground, even to express your reverence for heavenly things, is contrary to human dignity.
- When philosophers shoot from the Hip.James Rachels -1991 -Bioethics 5 (1):67-71.
- Punishment and desert.James Rachels -1997 - In Hugh LaFollette - ,Ethics in Practice. Blackwell. pp. 466--74.Retributivism—the idea that wrongdoers should be “paid back” for their wicked deeds—fits naturally with many people’s feelings. They find it deeply satisfying when murderers and rapists “get what they have coming,” and they are infuriated when villains “get away with it.” But others dismiss these feelings as primitive and unenlightened. Sometimes the complaint takes a religious form. The desire for revenge, it is said, should be resisted by those who believe in Christian charity. After all, Jesus himself rejected the rule (...) of “an eye for an eye,”2 and St. Paul underscored the point, saying that we should not “return evil for evil” but we should “overcome evil with good.”3 To those who adopt this way of thinking, whether on secular or religious grounds, vengeance cannot be an acceptable motive for action. This objection is, for the most part, misguided. The idea that wrongdoers should be “paid back” for their wickedness is not merely a demand for primitive vengeance. It is.. (shrink)
- Naturalism.James Rachels -2000 - In Hugh LaFollette -,The Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory. Blackwell.Twentieth century philosophy began with the rejection of naturalism. Many modern philosophers had assumed that their subject was continuous with the sciences, and that facts about human nature and other such information were relevant to the great questions of ethics, logic, and knowledge. Against this, Frege argued that “psychologism” in logic was a mistake. Logic, he said, is an autonomous subject with its own standards of truth and falsity, and those standards have nothing to do with how the mind works (...) or with any other natural facts. Then, in the first important book of twentieth century ethics, Principia Ethica, G. E. Moore also identified naturalism as the fundamental philosophical mistake. Moore argued that equating goodness with any of the natural properties of things is “inconsistent with the possibility of any Ethics whatsoever”. Frege, Moore, and other like-minded thinkers inaugurated a period in which logic and language were the dominant philosophical subjects and confusing conceptual with factual issues was the greatest philosophical sin. During this period, philosophy was thought to be independent of the sciences. This may seem a strange notion, especially where ethics is concerned. One might expect moral philosophers to work in the context of information provided by psychology, which describes the nature of human thinking and motivation; sociology and anthropology, which describe the forms of human social life; history, which traces the development of moral beliefs and practices; and evolutionary biology, which tells us something about the nature and origins of human beings. But all these subjects were counted as irrelevant to the philosophical understanding of morality. (shrink)
- Two arguments against ethical egoism.James Rachels -1974 -Philosophia 4 (2-3):297-314.
- God and human attitudes.James Rachels -1982 - In Steven M. Cahn & David Shatz,Contemporary philosophy of religion. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 325 - 337.
- Darwin, Species, and Morality.James Rachels -1987 -The Monist 70 (1):98-113.“Man in his arrogance thinks himself a great work worthy the interposition of a deity. More humble and I think truer to consider him created from animals.” Thus wrote Darwin in his notebooks for 1838, twenty-one years before he was to publish The Origin of Species. He would go on, of course, to support this idea with overwhelming evidence, and it is commonly said that, in doing so, he brought about a profound change in our conception of ourselves. After Darwin, (...) we can no longer think of ourselves as occupying a special place in creation—instead, we must realize that we are products of the same evolutionary forces that shaped the rest of the animal kingdom. We are not a great work. We were created from animals. And this, it is said, has deep philosophical significance. (shrink)
- Euthanasia.James Rachels -1980 - In Tom L. Beauchamp & Tom Regan,Matters of life and death. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
- Moral problems.James Rachels -1971 - New York,: Harper & Row.Abortion: The morality of abortion, by P. Ramsey. The problem of abortion and the doctrine of double effect, by P. Foot. Whatever the consequences, by J. Bennett.--Sex: Sexual perversion, by T. Nagel. On sexual morality, by S. Ruddick.--Human rights and civil disobedience: Rights, human rights, and racial discrimination, by R. Wasserstrom. The justification of civil disobedience, by J. Rawls. Law and civil disobedience, by R. M. Dworkin.--Criminal punishment: The responsibility of criminals, by W. Kneale. Murder and the principles of punishment, (...) England and the United States, by H. L. A. Hart. Or else, by J. R. Lucas.--Violence and pacifism: What violence is, by N. Garver. Pacifism, a philosophical analysis, by J. Narveson.--War: War and murder, by G. E. M. Anscombe. On the morality of war, a preliminary inquiry, by R. Wasserstrom. Peace, by R. M. Hare.--Suicide and death: Suicide, by R. F. Holland. Death, by T. Nagel. Death, by M. Mothersill.--Bibliography (p. 386-390). (shrink)
- Egoism and moral scepticism.James Rachels -2009 - In Steven M. Cahn,Exploring ethics: an introductory anthology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Barney Clark's Key.James Rachels -1983 -Hastings Center Report 13 (2):17-19.
- John Dewey and the truth about ethics.James Rachels -1977 - In Steven M. Cahn,New studies in the philosophy of John Dewey. Hanover, N.H.: Published for the University of Vermont by the University Press of New England. pp. 149--171.
- Ethical theory.James Rachels (ed.) -1998 - New York: Oxford University Press.Rachels's two-volume Ethical Theory provides a comprehensive overview of contemporary moral philosophy, reprinting classic and contemporary articles, including many that are not otherwise readily available. Each volume contains a clearly written, substantial introduction that guides the beginner through the intricacies of the subject.
- More impertinent distinctions.James Rachels -1989 - In Robert M. Baird & Stuart E. Rosenbaum,Euthanasia: the moral issues. Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books. pp. 61--8.No categories
- Moral problems: a collection of philosophical essays.James Rachels -1975 - New York,: Harper & Row.Sex: Nagel, T. Sexual perversion. Ruddick, S. On sexual morality.--Abortion: Ramsey, P. The morality of abortion. Foot, P. The problem of abortion and the doctrine of the double effect. Wertheimer, R. Understanding the abortion argument. Thomson, J. J. A defense of abortion.--Prejudice and discrimination: Wasserstrom, R. Rights, human rights, and racial discrimination. Roszak, B. Women's liberation. Lucas, J. R. Because you are a woman. Thomson, J. J. Preferential hiring. Singer, P. Animal liberation.--Civil disobedience: Rawls, J. The justification of civil disobedience. (...) Singer, P. Rawls on civil disobedience. Dworkin, R. M. Law and civil disobedience.--Punishment: Downie, R. S. The justification of punishment. Kneale, W. The responsibility of criminals. Hart, H. L. A. Murder and the principles of punishment: England and the United States.--War: Anscombe, G. E. M. War and murder. Wasserstrom, R. On the morality of war: a preliminary inquiry. Lackey, D. Ethics and nuclear deterrence. Narveson, J. Pacifism: a philosophical analysis.--Suicide and death: Brandt, R. B. The morality and rationality of suicide. Holland, R. F. Suicide. Nagel, T. Death. Williams, B. The Makropulos case: reflections on the tedium of immortality.--Selected bibliography (p. 432-437). (shrink)
- Reasoning about killing and letting die.James Rachels -1981 -Southern Journal of Philosophy 19 (4):465-473.
- Reasons for Action.James Rachels -1971 -Canadian Journal of Philosophy 1 (2):173 - 187.We can often explain a person's action by citing some fact which prompted him to do what he did. For example:Tom quit his job because he was offered more money elsewhere;Dick took his daughter to the dentist because she had a toothache;Harry rushed out of the theater because it was on fire.In each case there are four elements which fit together in a characteristic pattern. The first is the fact that Tom has been offered more money, that Dick's daughter has (...) a toothache, or that the theater in which Harry is sitting is on fire. If the theater were not on fire, for example, then we would have to give a different sort of explanation of why Harry rushed out: we would have to say that he left because he thought it was on fire, not because it was on fire. I shall have more to say about this point later. The second is their knowledge of these facts. If Dick is unaware of the girl's toothache, he can hardly do anything on account of it; and of course the same goes for the other cases. The third element is the attitude which each agent has toward the existing state-of-affairs. Tom wants to earn more money; Dick loves his daughter and doesn't want her to suffer; and Harry, like the rest of us, doesn't want to be burned. Finally, there is the action which is being explained: Tom quits his job, Dick takes the girl to the dentist, and Harry rushes from the theater. (shrink)
- Wants, reasons, and justifications.James Rachels -1968 -Philosophical Quarterly 18 (73):299-309.
- God and goodness.James Rachels -2009 - In Steven M. Cahn,Exploring philosophy of religion: an introductory anthology. New York: Oxford University Press.Export citation
Bookmark - God and the concept of worship.James Rachels -2009 - In Steven M. Cahn,Exploring philosophy of religion: an introductory anthology. New York: Oxford University Press.Export citation Bookmark
- "Ordinary" and "Extraordinary" Vary with the Case.Rev James V. Hickey,Sharon A. Fischer &James Rachels -1983 -Hastings Center Report 13 (5):43.
- Case Studies in Bioethics: Active Euthanasia with Parental Consent.Hunter C. Leake,James Rachels &Philippa Foot -1979 -Hastings Center Report 9 (5):19.
- A questão da objectividade em ética.James Rachels -2004 -Critica.
- Are quotas sometimes justified?James Rachels -2000 - In Steven M. Cahn,Exploring Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology. New York, NY, United States of America: Oxford University Press USA.
- A report from America: Baby M.James Rachels -1987 -Bioethics 1 (4):357–365.
- A ética de Kant.James Rachels -2003 -Critica.
- Aktif ve Pasif Ötenazi.James Rachels -2006 -Felsefe Tartismalari 36:89-96.No categoriesExport citation Bookmark
- Can the egoist have it both ways?James Rachels -1978 -Philosophia 8 (2-3):425-428.
- Darwin's moral lapse.James Rachels -1986 -National Forum:22-24.One reason Darwin's letters and journals are such a pleasure to read is that in them we meet a modest, decent man who commands our respect, and even our affection. He was not only a great scientist; he was an exemplary human being. Yet there was one famous episode in Darwin's life in which he and his friends acted badly. Perhaps because he was so admirable a man, historians have tended to gloss over this moral lapse, sometimes even to the (...) point of misrepresenting the facts. I refer, of course, to the celebrated episode involving Alfred Russel Wallace, who "scooped" Darwin by independently discovering the theory of natural selection. The standard accounts suggest that Darwin and his friends treated Wallace honorably. A closer look at what happened leaves a different impression: it is a lamentable story of human weakness, in which some good men treated another good man disgracefully. (shrink)
- Ethics and the bible.James Rachels -2002 -Think (1):93-101.How should we live? To answer that question, many people turn to the Bible. What they find is often inspiring, although it may set standards that are uncomfortably high: love your neighbor as yourself, treat others as you would like to be treated, and walk humbly with God. Inspiration, however, can be found in a great many books. To Kill a Mockingbird teaches the virtue of tolerance, and A Tale of Two Cities impresses us with the nobility of self-sacrifice. William (...) J. Bennett, a philosopher who served as U. S. Secretary of Education, edited a collection called The Book of Virtues that includes dozens of stories and poems designed to teach courage, selfreliance, and responsibility.i But the Bible, many people think, is different. It has an authority that other books lack. Therefore, they look to the Bible, not just for inspiration, but for answers to specific moral questions, such as questions about abortion and homosexuality. (shrink)
- (1 other version)Euthanasia and the Physician’s Professional Commitments.James Rachels -1984 -Southern Journal of Philosophy 22 (2):281-285.
- Evaluating from a point of view.James Rachels -1972 -Journal of Value Inquiry 6 (2):144-157.[This essay originally appeared in the Journal of Value Inquiry, vol. 6 (1972), pp. 144-157.] I In recent years the concept of a point of view has come to play an important role in philosophical ethics. Writers such as Kurt Baier, William Frankena, Paul Taylor, Kai Nielsen, G.J. Warnock, and J.O. Urmson1 have all urged a view of the nature of morality according to which, in making a moral judgment, what a person is doing is expressing a preference from within (...) a certain point of view. Different accounts are given of just how “the moral point of view” is to be distinguished from other points of view,2 but most of these writers – Baier, Frankena, Nielsen, and Warnock – say that it is distinguished at least in part by the fact that anyone taking this point of view is thereby committing himself to the impartial promotion of “the interests of everyone alike,” where no one’s interests (including those of the agent himself) are given more importance than anyone else’s interests. On this view, moral principles are easily and naturally contrasted with principles of prudence; the egoist, by definition, has no moral principles since he does not care about promoting “the interests of everyone alike.” As an egoist, he is only.. (shrink)
- Ethical Theory 2: Theories About How We Should Live.James Rachels (ed.) -1998 - Oxford University Press UK.This second Ethical Theory volume covers the philosophical theories about how we ought to live, including utilitarianism, social contract theory, rights theory, virtue theory, and the New Kantianism.Export citation Bookmark
- Ethical Theory and Bioethics.James Rachels -1998 - In Helga Kuhse & Peter Singer,A Companion to Bioethics. Malden, Mass., USA: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 13–23.This chapter contains sections titled: Case Studies and Mid‐level Principles Justifying the Choice of an Ethical Theory References Further reading.No categories
- Felicidade, morte e absurdo.James Rachels -2009 -Critica.No categoriesExport citation Bookmark
- Haverá provas em ética?James Rachels -2008 -Critica.
| 1 — 50 / 68 |
Off-campus access
Using PhilPapers from home?
Create an account to enable off-campus access through your institution's proxy server or OpenAthens.
Monitor this page
Be alerted of all new items appearing on this page. Choose how you want to monitor it:
 Email |  RSS feed |
Editorial team
General Editors:
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Area Editors:
David Bourget
Gwen Bradford
Berit Brogaard
Margaret Cameron
David Chalmers
James Chase
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Esa Diaz-Leon
Barry Hallen
Hans Halvorson
Jonathan Ichikawa
Monte Johnson
Michelle Kosch
Øystein Linnebo
Paul Livingston
Brandon Look
Manolo Martínez
Matthew McGrath
Michiru Nagatsu
Susana Nuccetelli
Giuseppe Primiero
Jack Alan Reynolds
Darrell P. Rowbottom
Aleksandra Samonek
Constantine Sandis
Howard Sankey
Jonathan Schaffer
Thomas Senor
Daniel Star
Jussi Suikkanen
Aness Kim Webster
Other editors
Contact us
Learn more about PhilPapers
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Area Editors:
David Bourget
Gwen Bradford
Berit Brogaard
Margaret Cameron
David Chalmers
James Chase
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Esa Diaz-Leon
Barry Hallen
Hans Halvorson
Jonathan Ichikawa
Monte Johnson
Michelle Kosch
Øystein Linnebo
Paul Livingston
Brandon Look
Manolo Martínez
Matthew McGrath
Michiru Nagatsu
Susana Nuccetelli
Giuseppe Primiero
Jack Alan Reynolds
Darrell P. Rowbottom
Aleksandra Samonek
Constantine Sandis
Howard Sankey
Jonathan Schaffer
Thomas Senor
Daniel Star
Jussi Suikkanen
Aness Kim Webster
Other editors
Contact us
Learn more about PhilPapers
Home |New books and articles |Bibliographies |Philosophy journals |About PhilPapers |API |Contact us |Code of conduct
PhilPapers logo byAndrea Andrews andMeghan Driscoll.
This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see ourterms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications).Use of this site is subject toterms & conditions.
All rights reserved byThe PhilPapers Foundation
Server: philpapers-web-54b44b69b7-sq5lk uwo