Related

Contents
96 found
Order:
1 — 50 / 96
  1. Animal Rights and the Wrongness of Killing.Leslie Allan - manuscript
    This essay explores the moral reasoning underpinning the common view that it is worse to kill a human compared with killing an animal. After examining the serious deficiencies of traditional approaches, the author develops an alternative utilitarian-based framework that proportions the seriousness of killing to levels of sentience. He demonstrates how this new approach avoids the problems faced by the application of standard utilitarian formulae in weighing the seriousness of killing many low-sentience animals vis-á-vis killing a single human. The author (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  2. Is it morally permissible to eat meat?Ana Maria Diez De Fex - manuscript
    Many approaches have been taken regarding this topic, some of them are anthropological or scientific that pursue the understanding of why we eat meat, but from the philosophical lens this question is solved in the field of applied ethics, which is the area that debate about the moral status of animals (nonhuman animals) and where different theorizations that tried to explain the relationship between animals and humans and the examination of the morality of meat consumption take place. Some of these (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  3. Science and Speciesism.Jeroen Hopster - forthcoming - In Timothy Kneeland (ed.), Routledge Handbook of American Science.
    This chapter introduces topical issues in the ethical debate on speciesism. It does so against a background of the history of the debate and with an emphasis on concerns that arise at the intersection of speciesism and science. The term speciesism was coined in the 1970s by Richard Rider and popularized by Peter Singer, who defined speciesism as “a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interests of members of one’s own species and against those of members of (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  4. An inclusive account of the permissibility of sex: considering children, non-human animals, and people with intellectual disabilities.Adrià Moret - forthcoming - Social Theory & Practice.
    A complete theory of the permissibility of sex must not only determine the permissibility of sex between typical adult humans. In addition, it must also adequately take into consideration sex acts involving non-human animals, children, and humans with intellectual disabilities. However, when trying to develop a non-discriminatory account that includes these beings, two worrying problems of animal sex arise. To surpass them, I argue for a reformulation of the standard theory. To produce a truly inclusive account our theory should be (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  5. Apropos of "Speciesist bias in AI: how AI applications perpetuate discrimination and unfair outcomes against animals".Ognjen Arandjelović - 2023 - AI and Ethics.
    The present comment concerns a recent AI & Ethics article which purports to report evidence of speciesist bias in various popular computer vision (CV) and natural language processing (NLP) machine learning models described in the literature. I examine the authors' analysis and show it, ironically, to be prejudicial, often being founded on poorly conceived assumptions and suffering from fallacious and insufficiently rigorous reasoning, its superficial appeal in large part relying on the sequacity of the article's target readership.
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  6. What If They Were Humans? Non-Ideal Theory in the Shelter.François Jaquet - 2023 - In Valéry Giroux, Angie Pepper & Kristin Voigt (eds.), The Ethics of Animal Shelters. Oxford University Press.
    Our societies are marked by anthropocentrism: most people treat animals in ways in which they would by no means treat fellow humans. One might nonetheless expect this prejudice to be much less prevalent in animal shelters since these places are created for the very sake of non-humans and generally managed by people who truly care about animal welfare. This chapter questions this expectation. It discusses three practices that are widespread in animal shelters and yet could be suspected of anthropocentrism: killing (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  7. Against Moorean Defences of Speciesism.François Jaquet - 2023 - In Hugo Viciana, Antonio Gaitán & Fernando Aguiar (eds.), Experiments in Moral and Political Philosophy. Routledge.
    Common sense has it that animals matter considerably less than humans; the welfare and suffering of a cow, a chicken or a fish are important but not as much as the welfare and suffering of a human being. Most animal ethicists reject this “speciesist” view as mere prejudice. In their opinion, there is no difference between humans and other animals that could justify such unequal consideration. In the opposite camp, advocates of speciesism have long tried to identify a difference that (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  8. Is there a freegan challenge to veganism?Andy Lamey - 2023 - In Cheryl Abbate & Christopher Bobier (eds.), New Omnivorism and Strict Veganism: Critical Perspectives. New York: Routledge. pp. 35-51.
    Freeganism is the practice of eating food that is free. It is commonly associated with recovering food that grocery stores and restaurants have thrown away, but vegetables grown in one’s garden and other free foods, such as leftovers from a work event, would also qualify. It is worth asking whether there is a form of freeganism that can be justified in new omnivorist terms. Could it be consistent with animal protection to eat meat, just so long as we don’t pay (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  9. Harnessing Moral Psychology to Reduce Meat Consumption.Joshua May & Victor Kumar - 2023 - Journal of the American Philosophical Association 9 (2):367-387.
    How can we make moral progress on factory farming? Part of the answer lies in human moral psychology. Meat consumption remains high, despite increased awareness of its negative impact on animal welfare. Weakness of will is part of the explanation: acceptance of the ethical arguments doesn’t always motivate changes in dietary habits. However, we draw on scientific evidence to argue that many consumers aren’t fully convinced that they morally ought to reduce their meat consumption. We then identify two key psychological (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  10. Taking Into Account Sentient Non-Humans in AI Ambitious Value Learning: Sentientist Coherent Extrapolated Volition.Adrià Moret - 2023 - Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Consciousness 10 (02):309-334.
    Ambitious value learning proposals to solve the AI alignment problem and avoid catastrophic outcomes from a possible future misaligned artificial superintelligence (such as Coherent Extrapolated Volition [CEV]) have focused on ensuring that an artificial superintelligence (ASI) would try to do what humans would want it to do. However, present and future sentient non-humans, such as non-human animals and possible future digital minds could also be affected by the ASI’s behaviour in morally relevant ways. This paper puts forward Sentientist Coherent Extrapolated (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  11. How to Win Multispecies Friends and Influence Anthropocentric People: Review of Jane Mummery and Debbie Rodan, Imagining New Human–Animal Futures in Australia. [REVIEW]Serrin Rutledge-Prior - 2023 - Humanimalia 13 (2):247–252.
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  12. A Kantian Approach to the Moral Considerability of Non-human Nature.Toby Svoboda - 2023 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 36 (4):1-16.
    A Kantian approach can establish that non-human natural entities are morally considerable and that humans have duties to them. This is surprising, because most environmental ethicists have either rejected or overlooked Kant when it comes to this issue. Inspired by an argument of Christine Korsgaard, I claim that both humans and non-humans have a natural good, which is whatever allows an entity to function well according to the kind of entity it is. I argue that humans are required to confer (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  13. Why the Court Should Free Happy.Gary Comstock, Adam Lerner & Peter Singer - 2022 - Inside Sources.
    Should the law recognize an elephant’s right to be released from solitary confinement? The New York State Court of Appeals—the highest court in the State of New York—will consider this question on May 18. At issue is an Asian elephant named Happy. But happy she is not. Every human being has a right to bodily liberty because they have strong interests that this right protects. Since Happy has the same strong interests, the Court should recognize Happy’s right to be freed (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  14. Is Daniel a Monster? Reflections on Daniel A. Bell and Wang Pei’s "Subordination Without Cruelty" Thesis.Rainer Ebert, Valéry Giroux, Angie Pepper & Kristin Voigt - 2022 - Les Ateliers de l'Éthique / the Ethics Forum 17 (1-2):31-45.
    Daniel Bell and Wang Pei’s recent monograph, Just Hierarchy, seeks to defend hierarchical relationships against more egalitarian alternatives. This paper addresses their argument, offered in one chapter of the book, in favour of a hierarchical relationship between human and nonhuman animals. This relationship, Bell and Pei argue, should conform to what they call “subordination without cruelty:” it is permissible to subordinate and exploit animals for human ends, provided that we do not treat them cruelly. We focus on three aspects of (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  15. Review of How to Count Animals, more or less. [REVIEW]Benjamin Elmore - 2022 - Between the Species 25 (1):111-118.
    In How to Count Animals, more or less, Shelly Kagan sketches and argues for a hierarchical account of moral status. Although the book is fairly lengthy at 304 pages of text, Kagan is correct in calling it a sketch, since what this book provides us with is a foray into one aspect that a comprehensive ethical theory must include, in his view, if it is to be plausible. Even so, the work that he does, if one accepts hierarchy, opens up (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  16. The Case Against Speciesism and Sexism.Kelsey Gaylord - 2022 - Stance 15:32-43.
    Using the interactionist approach of comparative philosophy, I evaluate the intersecting points made in Animal Liberation by Peter Singer and The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory by Carol Adams. The purpose of this paper is to examine how a combination of the utilitarian and feminist perspectives helps us adopt a new philosophy accounting for all systems of oppression involved in eating animals. I conclude that by removing unnecessary harm to animals and unlearning phrases with an absent reference (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  17. Speciesism and tribalism: Embarrassing origins.François Jaquet - 2022 - Philosophical Studies 179 (3):933-954.
    Animal ethicists have been debating the morality of speciesism for over forty years. Despite rather persuasive arguments against this form of discrimination, many philosophers continue to assign humans a higher moral status than nonhuman animals. The primary source of evidence for this position is our intuition that humans’ interests matter more than the similar interests of other animals. And it must be acknowledged that this intuition is both powerful and widespread. But should we trust it for all that? The present (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  18. What’s Wrong with Speciesism.François Jaquet - 2022 - Journal of Value Inquiry 56 (3):395-408.
    The prevalent view in animal ethics is that speciesism is wrong: we should weigh the interests of humans and non-humans equally. Shelly Kagan has recently questioned this claim, defending speciesism against Peter Singer’s seminal argument based on the principle of equal consideration of interests. This critique is most charitably construed as a dilemma. The principle of equal consideration can be interpreted in either of two ways. While it faces counterexamples on the first reading, it makes Singer’s argument question-begging on the (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  19. Are the folk utilitarian about animals?Guy Kahane & Lucius Caviola - 2022 - Philosophical Studies 180 (4):1081-1103.
    Robert Nozick famously raised the possibility that there is a sense in which both deontology and utilitarianism are true: deontology applies to humans while utilitarianism applies to animals. In recent years, there has been increasing interest in such a hybrid views of ethics. Discussions of this Nozickian Hybrid View, and similar approaches to animal ethics, often assume that such an approach reflects the commonsense view, and best captures common moral intuitions. However, recent psychological work challenges this empirical assumption. We review (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  20. Speciesism and Sentientism.Andrew Y. Lee - 2022 - Journal of Consciousness Studies 29 (3-4):205-228.
    Many philosophers accept both of the following claims: (1) consciousness matters morally, and (2) species membership doesn’t matter morally. In other words, many reject speciesism but accept what we might call 'sentientism'. But do the reasons against speciesism yield analogous reasons against sentientism, just as the reasons against racism and sexism are thought to yield analogous reasons against speciesism? This paper argues that speciesism is disanalogous to sentientism (as well as racism and sexism). I make a case for the following (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  21. The Philosophers' Brief in Support of Happy's Appeal.Gary Comstock, Sue Donaldson, Andrew Fenton, Tyler M. John, L. Syd M. Johnson, Robert C. Jones, Will Kymlicka, Letitia M. Meynell, Nathan Nobis, David M. Peña-Guzmán, James Rocha, Bernard Rollin, Jeff Sebo & Adam Shriver - 2021 - New York State Appellate Court.
    We submit this brief in support of the Nonhuman Rights Project’s efforts to secure habeas corpus relief for the elephant named Happy. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, declined to grant habeas corpus relief and order Happy’s transfer to an elephant sanctuary, relying, in part, on previous decisions that denied habeas relief for the NhRP’s chimpanzee clients, Kiko and Tommy. Those decisions use incompatible conceptions of ‘person’ which, when properly understood, are either philosophically inadequate or, in fact, compatible with Happy’s personhood.
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  22. A Critique of Scanlon on the Scope of Morality.Benjamin Elmore - 2021 - Between the Species 24 (1):145-165.
    In this essay, I argue that contractualism, even when it is actually used to construe our moral duties towards non-human animals, does not do so naturally. We can infer from our experiences with companion animals that we owe moral duties to them because of special relationships we are in with them. We can further abstract that we owe general moral duties to non-human animals because they are the kinds of beings that we can have relationships with, and because of the (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  23. The Psychological Speciesism of Humanism.Carrie Figdor - 2021 - Philosophical Studies 178:1545-1569.
    Humanists argue for assigning the highest moral status to all humans over any non-humans directly or indirectly on the basis of uniquely superior human cognitive abilities. They may also claim that humanism is the strongest position from which to combat racism, sexism, and other forms of within-species discrimination. I argue that changing conceptual foundations in comparative research and discoveries of advanced cognition in many non-human species reveal humanism’s psychological speciesism and its similarity with common justifications of within-species discrimination.
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  24. Against Nature; By Lorraine Daston. [REVIEW]Kyle Johannsen - 2021 - Between the Species 24 (1):140-4.
    Lorraine Daston's "Against Nature" seeks to explain why, in spite of compelling objections to the contrary, human beings continue to invest nature with moral authority. More specifically, she claims that our propensity to moralize nature is traceable in part to human nature. Though I criticize Daston for not paying adequate attention to John Stuart Mill's narrow sense of 'nature', I also highly recommend her book.
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  25. Humanitarian Assistance for Wild Animals.Kyle Johannsen - 2021 - The Philosophers' Magazine 93:33-37.
    I argue that most wild animals live bad lives, and that we should intervene in nature to improve their wellbeing.
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  26. Moral Status, Luck, and Modal Capacities: Debating Shelly Kagan.Harry R. Lloyd - 2021 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 38 (2):273-287.
    Shelly Kagan has recently defended the view that it is morally worse for a human being to suffer some harm than it is for a lower animal (such as a dog or a cow) to suffer a harm that is equally severe (ceteris paribus). In this paper, I argue that this view receives rather less support from our intuitions than one might at first suppose. According to Kagan, moreover, an individual’s moral status depends partly upon her ‘modal capacities.’ In this (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  27. Being Consistently Biocentric: On the (Im)possibility of Spinozist Animal Ethics.Chandler D. Rogers - 2021 - Journal for Critical Animal Studies 18 (1):52-72.
    Spinoza’s attitude toward nonhuman animals is uncharacteristically cruel. This essay elaborates upon this ostensible idiosyncrasy in reference to Hasana Sharp’s commendable desire to revitalize a basis for animal ethics from within the bounds of his system. Despite our favoring an ethics beginning from animal affect, this essay argues that an animal ethic adequate to the demands of our historical moment cannot be developed from within the confines of strict adherence to Spinoza’s system—and this is not yet to speak of a (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  28. Las éticas centradas en el sufrimiento y sus implicaciones para el cuestionamiento del uso de los animales.Mat Rozas, Ángeles Cancino Rodezno & Oscar Horta - 2021 - Revista de Filosofía 38 (99):81-97.
    En este artículo se explica en qué consisten las éticas centradas en el sufrimiento, presenta algunas de las principales razones a su favor y expone cuáles son sus implicaciones con respecto a la consideración moral de los animales. Se argumenta que conforme a estas éticas los usos como recursos de los animales lesivos para estos deberán ser rechazados. A continuación, se examinan las posiciones que aceptan el uso de los animales siempre que este tenga lugar reduciendo los daños infligidos a (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  29. The suffering of invertebrates: An approach from animal ethics.Alejandro Villamor-Iglesias - 2021 - Tópicos: Revista de Filosofía 61:403-420.
    Invertebrate animals are usually seen as a kind of “aliens” which do not deserve any moral consideration. However, there is a growing amount of evidenceindicating that many of them do have the capacity to experience pain. The samecriteria that are usually applied in order to infer that vertebrates are sentient beings (behavioral response, learning capacity, memory, a certain specific neurophysiological structure…) lead to the idea that many invertebrates aresentient as well. Therefore, under the skeptical premise that we have no directevidence (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  30. Children prioritize humans over animals less than adults do.Matti Wilks, Lucius Caviola, Guy Kahane & Paul Bloom - 2021 - Psychological Science 1 (32):27-38.
    Is the tendency to morally prioritize humans over animals weaker in children than adults? In two pre-registered studies (N = 622), 5- to 9-year-old children and adults were presented with moral dilemmas pitting varying numbers of humans against varying numbers of either dogs or pigs and were asked who should be saved. In both studies, children had a weaker tendency to prioritize humans over animals than adults. They often chose to save multiple dogs over one human, and many valued the (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  31. Animal Rights and the Duty to Harm: When to be a Harm Causing Deontologist.C. E. Abbate - 2020 - Journal for Ethics and Moral Philosophy 3 (1):5-26.
    An adequate theory of rights ought to forbid the harming of animals (human or nonhuman) to promote trivial interests of humans, as is often done in the animal-user industries. But what should the rights view say about situations in which harming some animals is necessary to prevent intolerable injustices to other animals? I develop an account of respectful treatment on which, under certain conditions, it’s justified to intentionally harm some individuals to prevent serious harm to others. This can be compatible (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  32. How to Help when it Hurts: ACT Individually (and in Groups).C. E. Abbate - 2020 - Animal Studies Journal 9 (1):170-200.
    In a recent article, Corey Wrenn argues that in order to adequately address injustices done to animals, we ought to think systemically. Her argument stems from a critique of the individualist approach I employ to resolve a moral dilemma faced by animal sanctuaries, who sometimes must harm some animals to help others. But must systemic critiques of injustice be at odds with individualist approaches? In this paper, I respond to Wrenn by showing how individualist approaches that take seriously the notion (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  33. Methodologies of Kelp: On Feminist Posthumanities, Transversal Knowledge Production and Multispecies Ethics in an Age of Entanglement.Cecilia Åsberg, Janna Holmstedt & Marietta Radomska - 2020 - In N. Cahoon H. Mehti (ed.), The Kelp Congress. Svolvær, Norway: pp. 11-23.
    We take kelp as material entities immersed in a multitude of relations with other creatures (for whom kelp serves as both nourishment and shelter) and inorganic elements of the milieu it resides in, on the one hand, and as a figuration: a material-semiotic “map of contestable worlds” that encompasses entangled threads of “knowledge, practice and power” (Haraway 1997, 11) in its local and global sense, on the other. While drawing on our field notes from the congress and feminist posthumanities and (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  34. Sur quelques supposées faiblesses de l'éthique animale: Au sujet d'un récent ouvrage d'Étienne Bimbenet. [REVIEW]Claudio Cormick - 2020 - Igitur. Arguments Philosophiques 11:1-11.
    In his last book, Le complexe des trois singes. Essai sur l’animalité humaine (2017), the French philosopher Étienne Bimbenet accuses “sensocentric” (« pathocentristes ») animal ethics of committing a performative contradiction: according to Bimbenet, these theories of animal rights — among which he focuses on the case of Zoopolis (2011) by Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka — would undermine themselves by means of declaring reason a “non-essential” feature of human beings, while at the same time those theories themselves can only (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  35. Mitgeschöpfe in Cora Diamonds Moralphilosophie (Fellow Creatures in Cora Diamond’s Moral Philosophy).Konstantin Deininger - 2020 - Tierethik 1 (2):80-106.
    Dieser Artikel stellt Cora Diamonds Begriff des Mitgeschöpfs dar und untersucht dessen Relevanz für tierethische und tierpolitische Diskurse. Die traditionelle Tierethik hat eine rationalistische, naturalistische und reduktionistische Tendenz. Diamonds Moralphilosophie stellt dem einen praxissensitiven Ansatz gegenüber, der Emotionen und die moralische Imagination umfasst, wobei Diamond die Bedeutung des Menschseins betont. Letztere entspringt zwar einem epistemischen Anthropozentrismus, jedoch folgt aus diesem keine Mensch-Tier-Hierarchie: Diamond plädiert dafür, andere Tiere als Mitgeschöpfe, als Gefährten auf sterblichen Pfaden, zu begreifen. Dabei zeigt Diamond an ihrer (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  36. Speciesism, Prejudice, and Epistemic Peer Disagreement.Samuel Director - 2020 - Journal of Value Inquiry 55 (1):1-20.
    Peter Singer famously argues that speciesism, like racism and sexism, is based on a preju-dice. As Singer argues, since we reject racism and sexism, we must also reject speciesism. Since Singer articulated this line of reasoning, it has become a widespread argument against speciesism. Shelly Kagan has recently critiqued this argument, claiming that one can endorse speciesism with-out doing so on the basis of a prejudice. In this paper, I defend Kagan’s conclusion (that one can endorse speciesism without being prejudiced). (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  37. Ethics after Darwin: Completing the Revolution.Rainer Ebert - 2020 - Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 11 (3):43-48.
    This is a big-picture discussion of an important implication of Darwinism for ethics. I argue that there is a misfit between our scientific view of the natural world and the view, still dominant in academic philosophy and wider society alike, that there is a discrete hierarchy of moral status among conscious beings. I will suggest that the clear line of traditional morality – between human beings and other animals – is a remnant of an obsolete moral outlook, not least because (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  38. Why Do We Believe Humans Matter More than Other Animals?Scott Hill & Michael Bertrand - 2020 - Journal of Applied Animal Ethics Research:1 - 8.
    Some recent psychological studies suggest that the belief that humans matter more than other animals can be strengthened by cognitive dissonance. Jaquet (forthcom- ing) argues that some of these studies also show that the relevant belief is primar- ily caused by cognitive dissonance and is therefore subject to a debunking argument. We offer an alternative hypothesis according to which we are already speciesist but cognitive dissonance merely enhances our speciesism. We argue that our hypothesis explains the results of the studies (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  39. Spécisme.François Jaquet - 2020 - In Renan Larue (ed.), La pensée végane: 50 regards sur la condition animale. Presses Universitaires de France.
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  40. Especismo.Ricardo Miguel - 2020 - Compêndio Em Linha de Problemas de Filosofia Analítica.
    Em analogia com outras discriminações, como o racismo ou o sexismo, o especismo é concebido como uma forma de discriminação moral com base na espécie. Em grande medida, a discussão contemporânea sobre a importância moral dos animais surgiu e desenvolveu-se em torno da crítica e da defesa do especismo. Este artigo oferece uma visão da discussão filosófica contemporânea sobre o especismo. Após uma breve introdução, apresenta-se uma definição de especismo e caracterizam-se vários tipos de especismo, sendo o Antropocentrismo o mais (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  41. Elämästä luopuminen -Biofilosofiasta, epä/elämisestä, toksisesta ruumiillistumisesta ja etiikan uudelleenmuotoilusta.Marietta Radomska & Cecilia Åsberg - 2020 - Niin and Näin 1:39-46.
    Elämä tavataan nähdä kuoleman vastakohtana. Tällaisen kahtiajaon ulkopuolelle mahtuu kuitenkin paljon ontologisia ja eettisiä kysymyksiä, joita on lähdettävä purkamaan toisesta suunnasta. Marietta Radomska ja Cecilia Åsberg ehdottavat suunnaksi biofilosofiaa, jossa elämistä ja kuolemista tarkastellaan yhteen kietoutuneina ja yhdessä muuttuvina.
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  42. Save the Meat for Cats: Why It’s Wrong to Eat Roadkill.Cheryl Abbate & C. E. Abbate - 2019 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 32 (1):165-182.
    Because factory-farmed meat production inflicts gratuitous suffering upon animals and wreaks havoc on the environment, there are morally compelling reasons to become vegetarian. Yet industrial plant agriculture causes the death of many field animals, and this leads some to question whether consumers ought to get some of their protein from certain kinds of non factory-farmed meat. Donald Bruckner, for instance, boldly argues that the harm principle implies an obligation to collect and consume roadkill and that strict vegetarianism is thus immoral. (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  43. Respect, Inherent Value, Subjects-of-a-Life: Some Reflections on the Key Concepts of Tom Regan’s Animal Ethics.Francesco Allegri - 2019 - Relations. Beyond Anthropocentrism 7:41-60.
    This article reconstructs the theoretical premises of Tom Regan’s animal ethics, the American philosopher recently disappeared who has given a fundamental contribu-tion to this area of practical ethics, by developing a theory of rights based on the extension to all subjects-of-a-life of Kantian notions such as inherent value and respect. Regan’s theory still remains the most rigorous foundation of an animal ethics alternative to the utilitarian approach of Peter Singer, but it is not without unresolved problems or not entirely satisfactory (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  44. Veganism, (Almost) Harm-Free Animal Flesh, and Nonmaleficence: Navigating dietary ethics in an unjust world.C. E. Abbate - 2019 - In Bob Fischer (ed.), Routledge Handbook of Animal Ethics.
    This is a chapter written for an audience that is not intimately familiar with the philosophy of animal consumption. It provides an overview of the harms that animals, the environment, and humans endure as a result of industrial animal agriculture, and it concludes with a defense of ostroveganism and a tentative defense of cultured meat.
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  45. The Speciesism Debate: Intuition, Method, and Empirical Advances.Jeroen Hopster - 2019 - Animals 9 (12):1-14.
    This article identifies empirical, conceptual and normative avenues to advance the speciesism debate. First, I highlight the application of Evolutionary Debunking Arguments (EDAs) as one such avenue: especially where (anti-)speciesist positions heavily rely on appeals to moral intuition, and EDAs have potential to move the debate forward. Second, an avenue for conceptual progress is the delineation of speciesism from other views in its vicinity, specifically from the view that biological differences between species are sometimes morally relevant (‘species-relativism’). Third, if we (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  46. A debunking argument against speciesism.François Jaquet - 2019 - Synthese 198 (2):1011-1027.
    Many people believe that human interests matter much more than the like interests of non-human animals, and this “speciesist belief” plays a crucial role in the philosophical debate over the moral status of animals. In this paper, I develop a debunking argument against it. My contention is that this belief is unjustified because it is largely due to an off-track process: our attempt to reduce the cognitive dissonance generated by the “meat paradox”. Most meat-eaters believe that it is wrong to (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  47. Is Speciesism Wrong by Definition?François Jaquet - 2019 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 32 (3):447-458.
    Oscar Horta has argued that speciesism is wrong by definition. In his view, there can be no more substantive debate about the justification of speciesism than there can be about the legality of murder, for it stems from the definition of “speciesism” that speciesism is unjustified just as it stems from the definition of “murder” that murder is illegal. The present paper is a case against this conception. I distinguish two issues: one is descriptive and the other normative. Relying on (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  48. Duty and the Beast: Should We Eat Meat in the Name of Animal Rights?Andy Lamey - 2019 - Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    The moral status of animals is a subject of controversy both within and beyond academic philosophy, especially regarding the question of whether and when it is ethical to eat meat. A commitment to animal rights and related notions of animal protection is often thought to entail a plant-based diet, but recent philosophical work challenges this view by arguing that, even if animals warrant a high degree of moral standing, we are permitted - or even obliged - to eat meat. Andy (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  49. An Alternative to the Orthodoxy in Animal Ethics? Limits and Merits of the Wittgensteinian Critique of Moral Individualism.Susana Monsó & Herwig Grimm - 2019 - Animals 12 (9):1057.
    In this paper, we analyse the Wittgensteinian critique of the orthodoxy in animal ethics that has been championed by Cora Diamond and Alice Crary. While Crary frames it as a critique of “moral individualism”, we show that their criticism applies most prominently to certain forms of moral individualism (namely, those that follow hedonistic or preference-satisfaction axiologies), and not to moral individualism in itself. Indeed, there is a concrete sense in which the moral individualistic stance cannot be escaped, and we believe (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  50. Fragile Umanità by Leonardo Caffo. [REVIEW]Steven Umbrello - 2019 - Journal of Posthuman Studies 3:105-112.
    A new book by Leonardo Caffo, Fragile Umanità, is reviewed. Fragile Umanità serves as a primer intended to introduce both professionals and non-professionsals to the concepts of contemporary posthumanism and the failures of humanist philosophies. The book's core methodology is to outline the differences between humanist and posthumanist philosophies and show how the latter is less contentious and favourable. The book is stylistically engaging, lucid and academically current, providing both novice readers and seasoned scholars with an easy-to-read introduction to posthumanist (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
1 — 50 / 96