Fifteen years after “Animal Liberation”: Has the animal rights movement achieved philosophical legitimacy?

Fifteen years ago, Peter Singer published Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals. In it, he proposed to end "the tyranny of humans over nonhuman animals" by "thinking through, carefully, and consistently, the question of how we ought to treat animals" (p. ix). On this anniversary of the book's publication, a critical analysis shows that the logic he presents, though popularly appealing, is philosophically flawed. Though influential in slowing and in some cases stopping biomedical research involving animals, the animal rights movement in the United States has yet to offer a clear and compelling argument for the equality of species.     

Israel Scheffler on Religion,Reason and Education

Israel Scheffler has only recently written directly and about religion and education in religion, although these are matters in which he has a strong personal interest. Scheffler's views on these issues are outlined and critically appraised, with some reference to the views of R.S. Peters on similar questions. It is suggested that one of the major difficulties which arise in relation to Schelffer's position concern its account of the balance between acceptance and critical search for clarity needed on the part of students in their engagement with Jewish ritual. This difficulty brings into focus a numer of central questions which arise concerning the reinterpretive account of Jewish tradition which Scheffler offers.     

Supposition as Quantification versus Supposition as Global Quantificational Effect

This paper follows up a suggestion by Paul Vincent Spade that there were two Medieval theories of the modes of personal supposition. I suggest that early work by Sherwood and others was a study of quantifiers: their semantics and the effects of context on inferences that can be made from quantified terms. Later, in the hands of Burley and others, it changed into a study of something else, a study of what I call global quantificational effect. For example, although the quantifier in ¬xPx is universal, it can be seen globally as having an existential effect; this is because the formula containing it is equivalent to x¬Px. The notion of global effect can be explained in terms of the modern theory of normal forms. I suggest that early authors were studying quantifiers, and the terminology of the theory of personal supposition is a classification of kinds of quantifiers. In this theory, to say that a term has distributive supposition is to say, roughly, that it is quantified by a universal quantifying sign. Later authors turned this into a theory of global quantificational effect. In the later theory, to say that a term has distributive supposition is to say that the overall effect is as if the term were universally quantified with a quantifier taking (relatively) wide scope. The difference between these two approaches is illustrated by the fact that the term man is classified as having distributive ("universal") supposition in Not every man is running in the earlier theory, whereas in the later theory that term does not have distributive supposition; it has determinate ("existential") supposition. In the paper I explain these options, and I argue from several texts that the earlier and later medieval theories actually worked like this. In an appendix I make further efforts to clarify the obscure early accounts, as well as the nineteenth century "doctrine of distribution". The last section of the paper discusses the "purpose(s)" of supposition theory.     

GENERALIZATION OF VERBAL CONDITIONING TO VERBAL AND NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR: GROUP THERAPY WITH CHRONIC PSYCHIATRIC PATIENTS1

Twelve chronic hospitalized female patients received token reinforcement contingent on two separate classes of verbalizations: (a) positive statements about optional activities available in the hospital setting, and (b) positive statements about people. Cross-class generalization of reinforced verbal responses about activities to overt behavior was tested by actual participation in activities; within-class generalization of verbal responses about people to verbalizations in another stimulus setting was assessed in a structured interview situation. A multiple baseline design with contingency reversals was employed to demonstrate experimental control of both classes of verbalizations in the group sessions. Positive statements about activities generalized to actual participation in activities, while generalization of positive statements about people to verbalization in the extra-group setting did not occur.     

Dative questions: A study in the relation of acceptability to grammaticality of an english sentence type

Generative grammarians have contended that English sentences of the type Who(m) did you give the book? (what are here called ‘dative questions’) are ungrammatical. The incorporation of the necessary restrictions in the grammar of English to account for this, however, requires a weakening of linguistic theory. It would be desirable, therefore, to account for the restriction within performance theory, as has been proposed by Jackendoff and Culicover (1971). Their particular account is shown here to be inadequate. In the course of trying to devise a better account, we found, by two different questionnaire-type experiments, that some English speakers, all from metropolitan New York City, accept dative questions. On the basis of this finding, we theorize that the observed variation in acceptability of dative questions is best accounted for by differences in the perceptual strategies for determining the grammatical relations in perceived clauses that different populations of English listeners use. There are thus no dialect differences, strictly speaking, for dative questions; they are all grammatical for all English speakers.