限界事例からの議論
d., The argument from marginal cases (again).
↑ Regan 1979.
↑ Pluhar 1995.
↑ Horta 2014.
↑ Rachels 1991.
↑ “How should we read Machan’s broken-chair analogy? There is only one coherent way to interpret it. He is arguing that, just as a broken chair still belongs in the category of chairs, a marginal human still belongs in the category of humans. And because marginal humans belong to a species whose normal members can reason, have guilt, be held responsible for their actions – which Machan previously argued is a necessary condition for having any rights – the marginal members, too, deserve the same moral protections as those normal members.