Created from Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism (Oxford Paperbacks) (Paperback)

by James Rachels (Author)

Editorial Reviews

Review

"Remarkably clear, straightforward, and brief....Provocative."--Kirkus Reviews
"Rachel's book covers an extraordinarily diverse array of scientific, historical and philosophical topics (beginning with a 55-page synopsis of Darwin's life and thought) with admirable brevity, simplicity, fairness and clarity. It deserves to be read and pondered on by anyone with a serious interest in evolutionary thought or the treatment of animals."--American Scientist
"A lucid and lively account." --Journal of Metaphysics
"Ambitious, provocative, challenging, erudite....Commands attention." --Medical Humanities Review
"Clearly written and engaging."--Ethics


Product Description
Western philosophy and religion, James Rachels argues, have been shaken by the implications of Darwin's work, most notably the controversial idea that humans are simply a more complex kind of animal. Here, Rachels assesses a number of studies that suggest how closely humans are linked to other primates in behavior, and then goes on to show how this idea undercuts the work of many prominent philosophers.

Created from Animals offers a provocative look at how Darwinian evolution undermines many tenets of traditional philosophy and religion. Rachels begins by examining Darwin's own life and work, presenting an astonishingly vivid and compressed biography. We see Darwin's studies of the psychological links in evolution (such as emotions in dogs, and the "mental powers" of worms), and how he addressed the moral implications of his work, especially in his concern for the welfare of animals. Rachels goes on to present a lively and accessible survey of the controversies that followed in Darwin's wake, ranging from Herbert Spencer's Social Darwinism to Edward O. Wilson's sociobiology, and discusses how the work of such influential intellects as Descartes, Hume, Kant, T.H. Huxley, Henri Bergson, B.F. Skinner, and Stephen Jay Gould has contributed to--or been overthrown by--evolutionary science.

With this sweeping survey of the arguments, the philosophers, and the deep implications surrounding Darwinism, Rachels lays the foundations for a new view of morality. Virbrantly written and provocatively argued, Created from Animals offers a new perspective on issues ranging from suicide to euthanasia to animal rights.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 256 pages
• Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA; 1ST edition (May 23, 1991)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0192861298
• ISBN-13: 978-0192861290
• Product Dimensions: 7.8 x 5 x 0.8 inches
• Shipping Weight: 10.4 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.8 out of 5 stars See all reviews (6 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #512,472 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

9 of 12 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Created from Animals...and then some!, April 6, 2000

By	Daw-Nay Evans, Jr. (Blacksburg, Virginia) - See all my reviews

Rachels spends a good deal of time setting the intellectual and historical context in which Darwin's theory appears. He slowly but surely initiates the reader into the labyrinth of evolutionary theory with all the interesting characters such as Huxley and Wallace. The book is quite good, and lays out the argument of why one should look at non-human animals as of a different degree rather than of a different kind to human beings. He with Darwin's help answers the skeptics, religious dogmatists, and others on their own ground. The only problem with this book comes close to the end as Rachels presents his theory of moral individualism giving the reader a formula by which they can operate to treat animals with more respect. However, he does not explicate his theory thoroughly enough leaving it open to an enormous amount of criticism. The book can stand alone without the addition of such a theory. It is an excellent read for anyone pondering the questions of evolution, morality, and if we should change the way we view animals.

3 of 7 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Interesting...., June 21, 2000

By	Jessie (Phillipsburg, NJ USA) - See all my reviews

I had to read this book for a class in college. I must admit, I wasn't thrilled with the prospect. But once I started reading, I couldn't stop. Rachels explores Darwinism and its relation to morality; good book for animal rights, though a bit dry and obscure at times.

4 of 11 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Darwin Sycophant, April 15, 2004

By	Jason Nelson "musshin" (Kansas City, MO USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

The first part of this book is primarily a brief Darwin biography. From there the author proceeds to delve into deeper questions regarding morality, ethics, sociobiological ethics and the sacredness of human life.
The main thesis of this work is that 'Darwinism leads inevitably to the abandonment of the idea of human dignity and the substitution of a different sort of ethic.' In other words in former times our culture had a "traditionalist ethic". This states that God is the head honcho, created humans and other animals, endowed man with superior abilities and that animals are the subject of man who for the most part can choose to do whatever he wants to with animals. Rachels' point is that this ethic has been usurped by a Darwinian ethic which states that man and his capacities are no different than animals even if man has a superior level of rationality. In Rachels' view this is how we should look at the world 'post-Darwinian'. The idea that man is above and beyond animals is now moot since we are all related. This is an interesting point but regardless of whether you believe in God or Darwin's notion one still cannot escape that fact that man is significantly different from animals owing to his rational abilities. It's not just a minor difference, but rather a major difference. This is why man has certain standards of morality that you would never ascribe to animals. This is why it's okay for mankind to subject animals to his whims a bit as long as he's compassionate. The whole idea of evolution seems to show that we (or whoever objectively) value what has the greatest quality of life on an evolutionary scale. Therefore, man comes before monkeys and monkeys come before worms in order of importance. A rather simple concept. Rachels doesn't drive this point home convincingly enough but seems to continually harp upon the similarities of man and animals. Rachels is an advocate of moral individualism. This idea basically says that matters have to be evaluated individually to see if there is a relevant difference between them that would compel us to act a certain way. I think Rachels was trying to establish the concept of accepting this new morality of moral individualism over the older ideas of morality. However, I don't think he drives this point home well enough. There are some examples but not overwhelmingly crisp ones. Also he seems to regard Darwin as somewhat sacred. Obviously many objections are being raised to some of the Darwinian ideas contained in evolutionary theory as of today. This means in the mode of proper science we should tentatively accept theories that seem to be more true while reserving the right to change our minds in light of more solid evidence for something else. We shouldn't just bow down to Darwin because he somewhat originally published many of the ideas of our current frame of thought. Also, it is to be noted that this book seems to run through theoretical examples as if just for fun without getting to a clear point. Some ideas are repeated through the diff. chapters. This is okay if you have nothing better to do but I would have appreciated it if the book took a more serious approach to finding answers instead of fiddling around for mere amusement. (oh, let's speculate on this. We won't find any answers but it will be fun to just do it!). Lastly, while books like this do shed information on some areas they rarely ever change anyone's opinion. If you look at the world from a Darwinian point of view that's fine..In fact, it may even be more truthful than the traditionalist point of view but to say you cannot live if you accept the traditionalist point of view (even if it may be false) is simply incorrect. So eventually one is left with the nagging question...what difference does it make? Is it just to satisfy mere intellectual curiosity? Well Rachels is arguing that it may affect how we look at things morally speaking. This is true but I'm not so sure that the fundamental difference is great enough to affect great cultural change. Is looking at animals as humans' relatives going to change the way we act as opposed to looking at animals as distinctly different from humans? Not really. We can still behave with compassion towards all forms of life regardless of what viewpoint we take. This is very similar to Buddhist thought. Basically, I believe that the main difference is just how you perceive things individually and how you act with regard to this. I think this was what Rachels was getting at. You can accept any viewpoint of morality as long as it contributes to a greater good. You can have God or not have Him. If it improves the overall quality of your life and another being's life it's good. If not..probably best to reject it.