Joel Marks is professor emeritus of philosophy at the University of New Haven ("UNH"). He received the B.A. in psychology from Cornell University and the M.A. and Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Connecticut ("UConn"). Between his stints at UConn and UNH, Marks also taught at the Portland (Maine) School of Art, St. John Fisher College, and the University of Rochester. In addition to the authored and edited books of philosophy shown at this site, Marks co-edited a scholarly Festschrift of the musical humorist Gerard Hoffnung with David E. E. Sloane in 1992 (Essays in Arts and Sciences, vol. 21). Marks has written numerous articles for professional journals and scores of op-eds and columns for newspapers and magazines on both ethics and astronomy (sharing, as he does, Immanuel Kant's "ever new and increasing admiration and awe [of] the starry heavens above ... and the moral law within ....)." Since 2000 Marks has been a regular columnist for Philosophy Now magazine. In addition to his own speaking engagements, Marks has organized and chaired scores of symposia, panels, and colloquia. For many years Marks also hosted an interview program on radio station WNHU, 88.7 FM, West Haven, Connecticut. Marks's main areas of scholarly interest are theoretical and applied ethics, and both have come together recently in his thinking about animal ethics. Marks is currently a Bioethics Center Scholar at Yale University. His Website is www.moralmoments.com.

In this volume, Marks offers a defense of amorality as both philosophically justified and practicably livable. In so doing, the book marks a radical departure from both the new atheism and the mainstream of modern ethical philosophy. While in synch with their underlying aim of grounding human existence in a naturalistic metaphysics, the book takes both to task for maintaining a complacent embrace of morality. Marks advocates wiping the slate clean of outdated connotations by replacing the language of morality with a language of desire. The book begins with an analysis of what morality is and then argues that the concept is not instantiated in reality. Following this, the question of belief in morality is addressed: How would human life be affected if we accepted that morality does not exist? Marks argues that at the very least, a moralist would have little to complain about in an amoral world, and at best we might hope for a world that was more to our liking overall. An extended look at the human encounter with nonhuman animals serves as an illustration of amorality's potential to make both theoretical and practical headway in resolving heretofore intractable ethical problems.