Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. For their own good? The unseen harms of disenhancing farmed animals.Susana Monsó & Sara Hintze - forthcoming - In Cheryl Abbate & Christopher Bobier (eds.), New Omnivorism and Strict Veganism: Critical Perspectives. Routledge.
    In recent years, some ethicists have defended that we should genetically engineer farmed animals to diminish or eliminate their capacity to experience negative affective states, a process known as disenhancement that would, according to these authors, result in a situation that is better than the status quo. While we agree with this overall assessment, we believe that it is a mistake to defend disenhancement as a good solution to farmed animals’ plight. This is because disenhancement entails some generally unseen harms (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Genetic disenhancement and xenotransplantation: diminishing pigs’ capacity to experience suffering through genetic engineering.Daniel Rodger, Daniel J. Hurst, Christopher A. Bobier & Xavier Symons - forthcoming - Journal of Medical Ethics.
    One objection to xenotransplantation is that it will require the large-scale breeding, raising and killing of genetically modified pigs. The pigs will need to be raised in designated pathogen-free facilities and undergo a range of medical tests before having their organs removed and being euthanised. As a result, they will have significantly shortened life expectancies, will experience pain and suffering and be subject to a degree of social and environmental deprivation. To minimise the impact of these factors, we propose the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • A democratic argument for animal uplifting.Eze Paez & Pablo Magaña - forthcoming - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy.
    Nonhuman animals are unable to exert any direct control over the functioning of democratic institutions –the decisions of which, nevertheless, have a pervasive impact on their lives. Their interests are therefore likelier to be set back or unfairly discounted, and their choices are more vulnerable to arbitrary interference. Because of this, some authors have suggested that we ought to redesign our political institutions so that they are more responsive to the interests of animals. We argue that this strategy fails to (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation