Review by Choice Review
Preece (emer., Wilfrid Laurier Univ.) offers a historical argument that challenges one's assumptions about the status of animals in Western culture. Although historical arguments can always be confronted with other historical arguments, contrary to received opinion Preece provides strong evidence that people have always taken animals' moral status seriously. In the final chapter the author takes modern moral philosophers to task concerning the moral status of animals. Though his interpretations of some of these philosophers (Hume and Regan in particular) are sometimes questionable, his own arguments avoid the usual logic-chopping of philosophers. He embraces a modernized version of an Aristotelian contextualism, beginning as Aristotle does with history and common opinion. Preece then softens it with people's care and love for animals. He marries it all to an evolutionary understanding of the "Great Chain of Being" to legitimize differing yet impartial treatment of animals according to their needs. Preece argues against the naturalistic fallacy and suggests that historical, popular, and empirical issues are where one begins when establishing tenable moral beliefs. Thus he ties together the historical and moral analyses. This wise, well-written, scholarly book is filled with insights. ^BSumming Up: Highly recommended. Upper-level undergraduates and above. R. Werner Hamilton College
Copyright American Library Association, used with permission.
Review by Choice Review
