People with cognitive disabilities: the Argument from Marginal Cases and social work ethics.

Abstract

A primary argument used by animal rights advocates to engage the public in questioning our maltreatment of animals is the Argument from Marginal Cases (AMC). It is important that social workers are aware of this argument, because it has the potential to diminish our consideration of people with severe cognitive disabilities. This article provides a brief overview of the argument, followed by a description of the means by which people with cognitive disabilities have been denigrated over the past century through animalistic rhetoric and negative comparisons with animals. The "animalization" of marginalized groups of all types has often served to reinforce and justify dehumanizing treatment of group members. Questions related to the logic of the AMC are raised, and the importance of the argument for the social work community is discussed.