Suchergebnisse

Abstract
This essay questions three widespread assumptions in monument debates: "moralism," "universalism," and "interpretive dominance." Roughly: moralism assumes that memorials should be only to good people or good causes; universalism holds that memorials should represent or be "for" the whole polity or its (real or supposed) corporate values; and interpretive dominance maintains that, when faced with monuments with reasonable qualifying and disqualifying interpretations, policy should respond to the disqualifying one(s). These assumptions do not settle the debates between removalists and preservationists, but they do make the removalist position easier to defend. Various counter-examples to these assumptions, real and imagined, motivate competing positions I term "sentimentalism," "particularism," and "interpretive independence."

Faced with the choice between supporting industrial plant agriculture and hunting, Tom Regan's rights view can be plausibly developed in a way that permits a form of hunting we call "dignitarian." To motivate this claim, we begin by showing how the empirical literature on animal deaths in plant agriculture suggests that a non-trivial amount of hunting would not add to animal harm. We discuss how Tom Regan's miniride principle appears to morally permit hunting in that case, and we address recent objections by Jason Hanna to environmentally-based culling that may be seen to speak against this conclusion. We then turn to dignity, which is especially salient in scenarios where harm is necessary or justifiable. We situate "dignitarian" hunting within a larger framework of adversarial ethics, and argue that dignitarian hunting gives animals a more dignified death than the alternatives endemic to large-scale plant agriculture, and so is permissible based on the kinds of principles that Regan endorses. Indeed, dignitarian hunting may actually fit better with Regan's widely endorsed animal rights framework than the practice of many vegans, and should only be rejected if we're just as willing to condemn supporting conventional plant agriculture.

This book brings together some of the foremost researchers of honor to debate honor's meaning and its compatibility with liberalism, democracy, and modernity. Contributors examine honor past to present, from masculine and feminine perspectives, and in North American, European, and African contexts.

Fighting Together: Civil Discourse and Agonistic Honor. - Liberalism and Honor through the Lens of Darwin. - Liberal Honor. - A Neo-Aristotelian Theory of Political Honor. - Putting One's Best Face Forward: Why Liberalism Needs Honor. - Communitarianism and Honor. - Good Citizens: Gratitude and Honor. - Winston Churchill and Honor: The Complexity of Honor and Statesmanship. - Life in Death: Democracy and Civic Honor. - The Female Point of Honor in Post-Revolutionary France. - A Woman's Honor: Purity Norms and Male Violence. - Restoring Order: The Ancient Greeks on Taming Honor and Appetite. - The Honour of the Crown': The State and Its Soldiers. - Honor in Military Culture: A Standard of Integrity and Framework for Moral Restraint