tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post1102594664771315411..comments2023-10-14T09:40:06.690-05:00Comments on Jean Kazez: Zoopolis (1)Jean Kazezhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-63041993249370347032012-03-20T09:01:05.216-05:002012-03-20T09:01:05.216-05:00"always" was supposed to be "all th..."always" was supposed to be "all the way" (no coffee yet)Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06297159994901018071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-41740510712631473932012-03-20T09:00:08.434-05:002012-03-20T09:00:08.434-05:00I think they see even the most minimal "someo...I think they see even the most minimal "someone's home" as supporting the attribution of strong rights--i.e. inviolability. I find that really just odd. I can see that if someone's home, the entity gets to be morally considerable in some basic sense, but it's a huge leap to go always from "someone's home" to inviolability.Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06297159994901018071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-38543279724864679442012-03-18T13:40:55.596-05:002012-03-18T13:40:55.596-05:00I don't see that the "someone at home&quo...I don't see that the "someone at home" category gets us very far. Surely there are different degrees of "being at home." My guess is that they have some idea of a minimal baseline "being at home" that is supposed to take care of the continuum problem?faustnoreply@blogger.com