I argue that the main existing accounts of the relationship between the beauty of environmental entities and their moral standing are mistaken in important ways. Beauty does not, as has been suggested by optimists, confer intrinsic moral standing. Nor is it the case, as has been suggested by pessimists, that beauty at best provides an anthropocentric source of moral standing that is commensurate with other sources of pleasure. I present arguments and evidence that show that the appreciation of beauty tends (...) to cause a transformational state of mind that is more valuable than mere pleasure, but that leads us to falsely represent beautiful entities as being sentient and, in turn, as having intrinsic moral standing. To this extent, beauty is not, then, a source of intrinsic moral standing; it’s a source of a more important anthropocentric value than has hitherto been acknowledged. (shrink)

Previous examinations of the scope of moral concern have focused on aggregate attributions of moral worth. However, because trade‐offs exist in valuing different kinds of entities, tabulating total amounts of moral expansiveness may conceal significant individual differences in the relative proportions of moral valuation ascribed to various entities. We hypothesized that some individuals (“tree‐huggers”) would ascribe greater moral worth to animals and ecosystems than to humans from marginalized or stigmatized groups, while others (“human‐lovers”) would ascribe greater moral worth to outgroup (...) members than to the natural world. Additionally, because moral valuation is often treated as being zero‐sum, we hypothesized that there would be no difference in aggregate levels of moral concern between tree‐huggers and human‐lovers. Finally, because attributions of mental capacities substantially contribute to moral valuation, we predicted that tree‐huggers and human‐lovers would show different patterns of mind attribution for animals versus humans. Three studies (N = 985) yielded evidence in support of our hypotheses. First, over one‐third of participants valued nature over outgroups. Second, extending moral value to animals and nature was not indicative of more expansive moral concern overall; instead, tree‐huggers and human‐lovers were identical in their aggregate ascriptions of moral worth. Third, tree‐huggers had relatively amplified tendencies to attribute mental capacities to animals and relatively reduced tendencies to attribute mental capacities to outgroup members—thus having elevated rates of both anthropomorphism and dehumanization. These findings necessitate a reconceptualization of both the extension of moral worth and the attribution of minds. (shrink)

Animals have always been important for human life due to the ecological, cultural and economic functions that they represent. This has allowed building several kinds of relationships that have promoted different emotions in human societies. The objective of this review was to identify the main emotions that humans show towards wildlife species and the impact of such emotions on animal populations’ management. We reviewed academic databases to identify previous studies on this topic worldwide. An analysis of the emotions on wildlife (...) and factors causing them is described here. We identified a controversy about these emotions. Large predators such as wolves, coyotes, bears, big felids, as well as reptiles such as snakes and geckos promote mainly anger, fear, and disgust. This is likely due to the perceptions, beliefs and experiences that societies have historically built around them. However, in some social groups these animals have promoted emotions such as happiness due to their values for people. Likewise, sadness is an emotion expressed for the threatening situations that animals are facing nowadays. Furthermore, we associated the conservation status of wildlife species identified in the study with human emotions to discuss their relevance for emerging conservation strategies, particularly focused on endangered species promoting ambiguous emotions in different social groups. (shrink)

This research seeks to expand on the current literature surrounding scientific and aesthetic concepts of cuteness through a biosemiotic lens. By first re-evaluating Konrad Lorenz’s Kindchenschema, and identifying the importance of schematic vs featural perception, we identify the presence of a series of perceptual errors that underlie existing research on cuteness. There is, then, a need to better understand the cognitive structure underlying one’s perception of cuteness. We go on to employ the methodological framework of Modeling Systems Theory to identify (...) and establish the forms that underlie both the encoding and decoding of cute phenomena. In redefining cuteness as a cohesive code, and establishing Kindchenschema as a schematic metaform, we set the foundation for the incorporation of biological and cultural theories of cuteness. This research offers an initial methodological framework for the examination of cute artifacts, that can be utilized in the fields of normative aesthetics, marketing, and design. (shrink)

The text aims at discussing the verbo-visual means of expression employed in three climate change-related campaigns in the context of their effectiveness. The chosen climate change awareness raising campaigns by two non-governmental organisations, EcoEduca and World Wide Fund for Nature Inc. (WWF), deal with the results of Arctic permafrost thaw resulting in the loss of sea ice dependent animals’ habitat. A cognitive linguistics oriented analysis refers to the theory of metaphor (Lakoff and Johnson 1980, Forceville 1996, Kövecses 2002, 2014), conceptual (...) blending (Fauconnier and Turner 2003), and construal (Langacker 1987, 2008). The visual layer will also be described with reference to a grammar approach to visual communication (Kress and Van Leeuwen 1996, 2001, Machin 2010). (shrink)

Moral patients deserve moral consideration and concern – they have moral standing. What factors drive attributions of moral standing? Understanding these factors is important because it indicates how broadly individuals conceptualize the moral world, and suggests how they will treat various entities, both human and non-human. This understanding has recently been advanced by a series of studies conducted by both psychologists and philosophers, which have revealed three main drivers of moral standing: the capacity to suffer, intelligence or autonomy, and the (...) nature of an entity's disposition. These studies have also revealed causal links between moral standing and other variables of interest, namely, mental state attributions and moral behavior. In this review, I consider this recent research, aiming to clarify what the balance of evidence indicates about how moral standing is judged and about its links to mind perception and behavior. I conclude by suggesting open questions for future research on this exciting topic. (shrink)