Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T10:00:15.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Humanism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2019

KIERAN SETIYA*
Affiliation:
MITksetiya@mit.edu

Abstract

I defend a form of humanism on which we have reason to care about human beings that we do not have to care about other animals, and human beings have rights against us that other animals lack. Humanism respects the equal worth of those born with severe congenital cognitive disabilities. I address the charge of speciesism and explain how being human is an ethically relevant fact.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © American Philosophical Association 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, E. (2004) ‘Animal Rights and the Values of Nonhuman Life’. In Sunstein, C. and Nussbaum, M. (eds.), Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 277–98.Google Scholar
Barnes, E. (2016) The Minority Body. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Beauvoir, S. de. (1953) The Second Sex. Translated by Parshley, H. M.. London: Jonathan Cape.Google Scholar
Benn, S. I. (1967) ‘Egalitarianism and the Equal Consideration of Interests’. In Pennock, J. R. and Chapman, J. W. (eds.), Nomos IX: Equality (New York: Atherton Press), 6178.Google Scholar
Darwall, S. (1977) ‘Two Kinds of Respect’. Ethics, 88, 3649.Google Scholar
Diamond, C. (1988) ‘Losing your Concepts’. Ethics, 98, 255–77.Google Scholar
Foot, P. (2001) Natural Goodness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kagan, S. (2016) ‘What's Wrong with Speciesism?Journal of Applied Philosophy, 33, 121.Google Scholar
Kant, I. ([1798] 2006) Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View. Translated by Louden, R. B.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Korsgaard, C. (1996) The Sources of Normativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Korsgaard, C. (2009) Self-Constitution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McMahan, J. (1996) ‘Cognitive Disability, Misfortune, and Justice’. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 25, 335.Google Scholar
McMahan, J. (2005) ‘Our Fellow Creatures’. Journal of Ethics, 9, 353–80.Google Scholar
McMahan, J. (2008) ‘Challenges to Human Equality’. Journal of Ethics, 12, 81104.Google Scholar
McMahan, J. (2016) ‘On “modal personism”’. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 33, 2630.Google Scholar
Murdoch, I. (1970) The Sovereignty of Good. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. (1970) A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Setiya, K. (2007) Reasons without Rationalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Setiya, K. (2010) ‘Sympathy for the Devil’. In Tenenbaum, S. (ed.), Desire, Practical Reason, and the Good (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 82110.Google Scholar
Setiya, K. (2012) Knowing Right From Wrong. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Setiya, K. (2013) ‘Murdoch on the Sovereignty of Good’. Philosophers’ Imprint, 13, 119.Google Scholar
Setiya, K. (2014a) ‘What is a Reason to Act?Philosophical Studies, 167, 221–35.Google Scholar
Setiya, K. (2014b) ‘Intention, Plans, and Ethical Rationalism’. In Vargas, M. and Yaffe, G. (eds.), Rational and Social Agency (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 5682.Google Scholar
Setiya, K. (n.d.) ‘Other People’. Unpublished ms.Google Scholar
Singer, P. (1975) Animal Liberation. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Thompson, M. (2013) ‘Forms of Nature: “First”, “Second”, “Living”, “Rational”, and “Phronetic”’. In Hindrichs, G. and Honneth, A. (eds.), Freiheit Stuttgarter Hegel-Kongress 2011 (Frankfurt: Klostermann), 701–35.Google Scholar
Waldron, J. (2017) One Another's Equals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, B. (2006) ‘The Human Prejudice’. In Williams, Philosophy as a Humanistic Discipline (Princeton: Princeton University Press), 135–52.Google Scholar