Bøker i Point/Counterpoint: Philosophers Debate Contemporary Issues-serien

Friedman challenges the response to hate speech codes, disputes the supposed pre-eminence of the Western canon and champions "thick multiculturalism" over a "thin global diversity" approach. Narveson argues that the equality of person invisaged in "classical" liberalism is the genuine article.

This text presents two critical views on religion in politics. Whilst Audi argues that citizens in a democracy should distinguish religious and secular considerations, Wolterstorff responds that religious elements are appropriate and indispensable for the vitality of a pluralistic democracy.

Do animals have rights? Is it wrong to use mice or dogs in research, or rabbits and cows as food? How ought we resolve conflicts between the interests of humans and those of other animals? In this volume, the animal rights debate is argued by two philosophers who represent opposing camps.

What rights govern heterosexual and homosexual behaviours? Laurence Thomas argues that any discrimination based on sexual orientation is unjustified, while Michael Levin defends the unorthodox view that the aversion some people experience toward homosexuality deserves respect.

When the children of Christian Scientists die from a treatable illness, are their parents quilty of murder for withholding that treatment? This text debates the issues of who is ultimately responsible for deciding such questions and how to accommodate Christian Science views and practices.

The question of what constitutes sexual harrassment is contentious, as is the question of how to address sexual harrassment. In this debate, two philosophers of widely divergent views present their arguments and then respond to each other's reasoning.

Two distinguished social and political philosophers take opposing positions in this highly engaging work. Louis P. Pojman justifies the practice of execution by appealing to the principle of retribution: we deserve to be rewarded and punished according to the virtue or viciousness of our actions. He asserts that the death penalty does deter some potential murderers and that we risk the lives of innocent people who might otherwise live if we refuse to execute those deserving that punishment. Jeffrey Reiman argues that although the death penalty is a just punishment for murder, we are not morally obliged to execute murderers. Since we lack conclusive evidence that executing murderers is an effective deterrent and because we can foster the advance of civilization by demonstrating our intolerance for cruelty in our unwillingness to kill those who kill others, Reiman concludes that it is good in principle to avoid the death penalty, and bad in practice to impose it.