80 research outputs found

    On Wood's ‘Social History of Political Theory’ (Volume 6, No. 3, August 1978)

    Full text link

    William Crosskey and the Common Law

    Get PDF

    Biology and Despotism

    Full text link

    Feminism, Primatology, and Ethical Naturalism

    Get PDF
    Primatology supports a feminist ethical naturalism rooted in evolutionary biology. Patriarchal exploitation can be condemned as contrary to women's natural needs and capacities, although prudence is required in recognizing how ecological circumstances limit the range of practicable reform. Donna Haraway's history of primatology, however, illustrates the tendency of some feminists to reject naturalistic realism in favor of nihilistic relativism. Such relativism is disastrous for the feminist position, because it deprives the feminist of any ground in nature for criticizing patriarchal customs. The scenario of “Woman the Gatherer” illustrates feminist naturalism in primatology. Judging female circumcision as frustrating the natural needs of both men and women illustrates the power of feminist naturalism for cultural critique.</jats:p

    THOMISTIC NATURAL LAW AS DARWINIAN NATURAL RIGHT

    No full text

    Human Nature Is Here to Stay

    No full text

    Nature and Culture in Feminist Biology

    Full text link

    Aristotle's Biopolitics: A Defense of Biological Teleology against Biological Nihilism

    Get PDF
    Modern Darwinian biology seems to promote nihilism, for it seems to teach that there is no rationally discoverable standard in nature for giving meaning to life. The purpose of this article is to argue for a revival of Aristotle's biological teleology as a reasonable alternative to biological nihilism. The article begins with Edward Wilson's vain struggle against nihilism. Then it is argued that a teleological understanding of nature is assumed in the practice of medicine, as illustrated by one case from Oliver Sacks' neurological practice. The article then considers the importance of biological teleology for Aristotle's moral and political philosophy, and attention is given to some points of agreement and disagreement with contemporary sociobiologists. The main part of the article is then devoted to a defense of Aristotle's biology against the five objections that might be made by a Darwinian biologist. Finally, the article illustrates the practical implications of this issue for bioethics by considering the recent work of Engelhardt.</jats:p
    corecore