.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5007/%25xAbstract
I present the critique of Robert Nozick against the deadlock generated by the acceptance and defense of the principle of kantian ethics when the interests of the species endowed with rationality are to be preserved and, at the same time, the utilitarian principle applies only to what relates to these interests, enclosing any consideration for the interest in other species even when they are also endowed with intelligence and sensibility. Based upon the argumen tation by Nozick, I conclude that — within the borders of anthropocentric ethics — we should redefine the meaning of the concept of ruling over other species. The activities undertaken for ensuring control over other species can be understood as necessary for their own preservation. The human beingscan show their rational and moral supremacy over the other beings in an intelligent way ensuring and not distrusting the multiplicity of the living forms
which surround them.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This journal provides open access to all of it content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. Such access is associated with increased readership and increased citation of an author's work. For more information on this approach, see the Public Knowledge Project, which has designed this system to improve the scholarly and public quality of research, and which freely distributes the journal system as well as other software to support the open access publishing of scholarly resources. The names and email addresses entered in this journal site will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.
Esta obra está licenciada sob uma Licença Creative Commons

