1. Introduction: Anthropomorphism and Animal Ethics -- 2. Anthropomorphous Animals and Philosophy -- 3. Moral Standing and Human Exceptionalism -- 4. Critical Anthropomorphism -- 5. Language and 'Moral Anthropomorphism' -- 6. Going Home: Returning from Posthumanism via a Defence of Identity as Continuity -- 7. The Application of Key Concepts. .
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
Animal ethics in relation to desensitisation and extreme compartmentalisation Dr Rebekah Humphreys, a Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Wales Trinity St David, Lampeter, discusses animal ethics and the morality of our treatment of animals in testing and intensive farming. Having become interested in the subject since studying it at university as part of a BA Degree in English and Philosophy, I have researched animal ethics (a sub-discipline of philosophy) for the past 25 years. I became conscious of the ways in which animals were being used in animal experimentation and factory farming (partly because of the work of Compassion in World Farming and (what is now known as) Cruelty Free International. This led me to an MA in Ethics and Social Philosophy before completing a PhD, specialising in animal ethics. I wanted to examine the justifications given for the suffering of animals used in these practices to understand how such treatment could be possible on such a vast scale (more than 100 million animals are used in research globally every year, with 4 million being used in the UK alone (RSPCA, 2023a); and approximately 50 billion animals are factory-farmed worldwide every year (CIWF, 2023)). My current research includes issues of justice, equality, desensitisation, compartmentalisation, and dignity in relation to animal ethics, ethology, and environmental ethics.
In the light of the current environmental crisis, different approaches to mitigating climate change have been put forward, some more plausible than others. However, despite problems with anthropocentric approaches to global warming (whether these be weak or strong versions of the approach), it seems that because of the largely anthropocentric outlook of the Western world, an internationally united approach to mitigating climate change will (perhaps inevitably) come from human-centred values. But what are the long-term implications of this? Such values need to be at the very least challenged if we are interested in providing justifiable and sustainable solutions to the current crisis. Indeed, this paper will analyse sentientism as an alternative environmental ethic stance and will discuss why it provides a more plausible approach than anthropocentric ones whilst recognising where it falls short.
The considerable conservation research on environmental problems and climate change tends to focus on species "biodiversity" rather than individuals. Individuals of the same species get categorized as "wild" or "captive", with the latter often omitted from conservationists' concerns. But wild and captive animals, although they may require different treatment, have comparable interests as individuals. Equity requires taking this into account in conservation efforts.
This paper aims to assess R. G. Frey's analysis of Leonard Nelson's argument (that links interests to rights). Frey argues that claims that animals have rights or interests have not been established. Frey's contentions that animals have not been shown to have rights nor interests will be discussed in turn, but the main focus will be on Frey's claim that animals have not been shown to have interests. One way Frey analyses this latter claim is by considering H. J. McCloskey's denial of the claim and Tom Regan's criticism of this denial. While Frey's position on animal interests does not depend on McCloskey's views, he believes that a consideration of McCloskey's views will reveal that Nelson's argument (linking interests to rights) has not been established as sound. My discussion (of Frey's scrutiny of Nelson's argument) will centre on the dialogue between Regan and Frey in respect of McCloskey's argument. I will endeavor to update the dialogue by providing a re-interpretation of 'rights' in Nelson's argument.
Although the practices of animal experimentation and intensive rearing involve a considerable amount of animal suffering they continue to be supported. Why is the suffering of animals in these practices so often accepted? This paper will explore some of the reasons given in support of the use of animals for such practices. In particular I will focus on contractarianism as one of the many positions that argues that morally relevant differences between species justify animal experimentation and factory farming. These differences include rationality and moral agency. On this position non-humans are excluded from direct moral concern on the basis that they lack such qualities. I will argue that in order for contractarianism to be coherent it necessarily has to include non-humans in the contract. This has implications for the application of contractarianism to the ethics of factory farming and animal experimentation.
It is widely held that moral obligations to non-human beings do not involve considerations of justice. For such a view, nonhuman interests are always prone to be trumped by human interests. Rawlsian contractarianism comprises an example of such a view. Through analysis of such theories, this essay highlights the problem of reconciling the claim that humans have obligations to non-humans with the claim that our treatment of the latter is not a matter of justice. We argue that if it is granted that the basic interests of non-human beings sometimes count for more than the peripheral interests of humans, then our understandings of obligation and of justice must be aligned, so that what we say about obligation is not countered by assumptions about the invariable priority of humans in matters of justice. We further consider whether such a conclusion can be endorsed by those who adopt certain alternative theories to contractarianism. We conclude that adherents of a range of theories including sentientism and biocentrism must accept that human interests can sometimes be superseded by animal interests, and that this applies not least in matters of justice.
It is widely held that moral obligations to non-human beings do not involve considerations of justice. For such a view, nonhuman interests are always prone to be trumped by human interests. Rawlsian contractarianism comprises an example of such a view. Through analysis of such theories, this essay highlights the problem of reconciling the claim that humans have obligations to non-humans with the claim that our treatment of the latter is not a matter of justice. We argue that if it is granted that the basic interests of non-human beings sometimes count for more than the peripheral interests of humans, then our understandings of obligation and of justice must be aligned, so that what we say about obligation is not countered by assumptions about the invariable priority of humans in matters of justice. We further consider whether such a conclusion can be endorsed by those who adopt certain alternative theories to contractarianism. We conclude that adherents of a range of theories including sentientism and biocentrism must accept that human interests can sometimes be superseded by animal interests, and that this applies not least in matters of justice.
