Joel Marks

This dissertation considers some normative and meta-ethical implications of a theory of emotion. In Chapter 2 emotion is argued to be belief plus strong desire. The 'strong desire' qualifier is defended against the more exclusively cognitive theories of William Lyons and Robert Solomon. Chapter 3 provides an explication of the 'dispassion thesis', which is the main thesis to be defended in this dissertation. The dispassion thesis states that dispassion, or the absence of emotion, is good; put differently, that emotion has no place in the ethical life. Various similar-sounding theses are shown to have significantly different content in light of the theory of emotion presented in Chapter 2; for example, the dispassion thesis is not the thesis that it is good to be unfeeling. Chapter 4 then gives the defense of the dispassion thesis. Dispassion is argued to be good on such grounds as that emotion inhibits desire-satisfaction, autonomy, adaptability, and rationality--in short, that emotion inhibits prudential and moral effectualness; thus, note, this defense of dispassion is largely non-quietist. A special section takes as a case in point the life of the Buddha Gautama Siddhartha, showing how it is possible to understand the compassion of a bodhisattva as an outgrowth of his dispassion. Chapter 5 asks whether dispassion, if desirable, is yet a practicable attainment for human beings. An affirmative response is supported by consideration of a possible cognitive method for inducing desire-transformation. Chapter 6 then carries on the discussion of desire-transformation by cognitive means in order to elaborate and defend a theory of the good recently put forward by Richard Brandt. This theory, while significant in its own right, also serves three important functions in this dissertation: it makes possible a more precise formulation of the dispassion thesis; it provides an acid test of the thesis that emotion has no place in ethical theory ; and it serves as a bridge between the dispassion thesis and the conclusion that dispassion is appropriate to the very nature of good and evil

It is now generally recognized that Earth is at risk of a devastating collision with an asteroid or a comet. Impressive strides in our understanding of this threat have been made in recent decades, and various efforts to deal with it have been undertaken. However, the pace of government action hasn’t kept up with the advance of our knowledge. Despite the daunting dimensions of planetary defense, one intrepid NGO has stepped up to the plate: The B612 Foundation has embarked on a half-billion-dollar project, called Sentinel, to map the estimated one million near-Earth objects that could wipe out a city or even end civilization. This article offers an explanation of how it came to be that private citizens have assumed what is arguably government’s primary mandate to "provide for the common defence." It then examines some of the practical – or, if you will, ethical – risks that may be attendant on such a shift of responsibility. Finally, a new policy emphasis is proposed.

Animal research is a challenging issue for the animal advocate because of what, besides animal well-being, is considered to be at stake, namely, human health. This article seeks to vindicate the antivivisectionist position. The standard defense of animal research as promoting the overwhelming good of human health is refuted on both factual and logical, or normative-theoretical, grounds. The author then attempts to clinch the case by arguing that animal research violates a deontic principle. However, this principle falls to counterexample. The author concludes, nevertheless, that the principle retains force as a presumption that the current state of affairs fails to overthrow. This does suggest, though, that the antivivisection movement would be well advised to keep ahead of the curve. The author proposes it do so by emulating the vegan movement against animal agriculture with the active promotion of alternatives to animal research.

It is common to argue that animal experimentation is justified by its essential contribution to the advancement of medical science. But note that this argument actually contains two premises: an empirical claim that animal experimentation is essential to the advancement of medical science and an ethical claim that if research is essential to the advancement of medical science, then it is justified. Both claims are open to challenge, but in the logic of the case, only one of them needs to be shown false or moot in order to refute the argument. I argue that the ethical claim does not withstand scrutiny. In addition, the main so-called “alternatives” to animal research do not merit that label since they still involve the use of nonhuman animals.