title: Amoralist rationalism? A response to Joel Marks: commentary on "Animal abolitionism meets moral abolitionism: cutting the Gordian knot of applied ethics" by Joel Marks.
abstract: In a recent article, Joel Marks presents the amoralist argument against vivisection, or animal laboratory experimentation. He argues that ethical theories that seek to uncover some universal morality are in fact useless and unnecessary for ethical deliberations meant to determine what constitutes an appropriate action in a specific circumstance. I agree with Marks' conclusion. I too believe that vivisection is indefensible, both from a scientific and philosophical perspective. I also believe that we should become vegan (unfortunately, like the two philosophers mentioned by Marks, I too am still struggling to reduce my meat and dairy consumption). However, I am in the dark as to Marks' vision of normative deliberations in the spirit of amoralism and desirism.
authors.affiliation: The Centre for Biomedical Ethics, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore, zoharlederman@gmail.com.
authors.forename: Zohar
authors.initials: Z
authors.lastname: Lederman
mesh_terms: D032761:Animal Experimentation / Q000941:ethics*; D017087:Animal Rights; D000818:Animals; D001675:Bioethics; D035843:Biomedical Research / Q000941:ethics*; D006801:Humans
references.citation: Bioethics. 1999 Jul;13(3-4):183-90
references.pmid: 11657227
references.citation: BMJ. 2004 Feb 28;328(7438):514-7
references.pmid: 14988196
references.citation: Hastings Cent Rep. 2012 Nov-Dec;Suppl:S16-8
references.pmid: 23138423
references.citation: J Bioeth Inq. 2013 Dec;10(4):445-55
references.pmid: 24092403