The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Frontiers of justice: disability, nationality, species membership
Open accessAbstract
rather "as a nexus of distinctive sensibilities, cares, and concerns that are expressed in distinctive patterns of emotional and practical response" (p.236).Drawing on Philippa Foot and Simone Weil, Wiggins draws out the moral significance of solidarity and recognition."In recognizing another person, we recognize not merely a subject of consciousness but a being who will seek to interpret us even as we seek to interpret him or her" (p.243).The priority of primitive aversions, with which Wiggins began, is then linked to acts that violate solidarity and deny recognition.What if we must violate basic deontological rules to prevent catastrophe?Wiggins responds with a fifth moral category "subsuming the ordinary passably virtuous agent's concern to preserve the very conditions under which human civilization will survive and/or ordinary morality can make its characteristic demands on normal human life" (p.259).It is a mistake, as consequentialists do, to model the whole of morality on these emergency cases.Wiggins resolutely defends a "piecemeal" approach to morality."[T]hose who despise the piecemeal . . .cut themselves off from all sorts of truths that bear closely on the questions they ask. . . .In so far as the case for morality can be stated briefly, all that can be said is that, in a way already illustrated, it is the most enterprising and durable expression that a human being will find for the benevolent dispositions he or she can discover within himself or herself " (p.265).This intriguing book is not aimed at teenage undergraduates, who will find Wiggins a very difficult and frustrating read.Ethics would certainly not be a suitable text for introductory ethics classes.Its target audience is rather those who, while beginners in philosophy, are not beginners in life.Such readers will still find Wiggins challenging (and, at times, opaque and old-fashioned), but they may also find him an intriguing and provocative guide as they seek to apply moral philosophy to moral life.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The Capability Approach in Practice*
Robeyns, I. (2006) · Journal of Political Philosophy · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2006.00263.x · Cited by 836
Robot rights? Towards a social-relational justification of moral consideration
Coeckelbergh, M. (2010) · Ethics and Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s10676-010-9235-5 · Cited by 391
Jayawickreme, E., Forgeard, M. J. C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2012) · Review of General Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0027990 · Cited by 341
Ethics of the Attention Economy: The Problem of Social Media Addiction
Bhargava, V. R., & Velasquez, M. (2021) · Business Ethics Quarterly · doi:10.1017/beq.2020.32 · Cited by 292
Zwijsen, S. A., Niemeijer, A. R., & Hertogh, C. M. P. M. (2011) · Aging & Mental Health · doi:10.1080/13607863.2010.543662 · Cited by 266
Metadata
- Venue
- Choice Reviews Online
- Publisher
- American Library Association
- Published
- 2006-12-01
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 04
- Pages
- 44-2056-44-2056
- ISSN
- 0009-4978 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-8253
- OpenAlex
- W1500164099
- Cited by
- 3,802
- References
- 0
- Type
- book review
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Frontiers of justice: disability, nationality, species membership. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5860/choice.44-2056
- The paper
- Frontiers of justice: disability, nationality, species membership. (2006). Choice Reviews Online. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.44-2056
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.