Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Genome Editing in Livestock, Complicity, and the Technological Fix Objection.Katrien Devolder - 2021 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 34 (3):1-17.
    Genome editing in livestock could potentially be used in ways that help resolve some of the most urgent and serious global problems pertaining to livestock, including animal suffering, pollution, antimicrobial resistance, and the spread of infectious disease. But despite this potential, some may object to pursuing it, not because genome editing is wrong in and of itself, but because it is the wrong kind of solution to the problems it addresses: it is merely a ‘technological fix’ to a complex societal (...)
    Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • What Would the Virtuous Person Eat? The Case for Virtuous Omnivorism.Christopher A. Bobier - 2021 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 34 (3):1-19.
    Would the virtuous person eat animals? According to some ethicists, the answer is a resounding no, at least for the virtuous person living in an affluent society. The virtuous person cares about animal suffering, and so, she will not contribute to practices that involve animal suffering when she can easily adopt a strict plant-based diet. The virtuous person is temperate, and temperance involves not indulging in unhealthy diets, which include diets that incorporate animals. Moreover, it is unjust for an animal (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Pedigree Dog Breeding Debate in Ethics and Practice: Beyond Welfare Arguments.Bernice Bovenkerk & Hanneke J. Nijland - 2017 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 30 (3):387-412.
    Pedigree dog breeding has been the subject of public debate due to health problems caused by breeding for extreme looks and the narrow genepool of many breeds. Our research aims to provide insights in order to further the animal-ethical, political and society-wide discussion regarding the future of pedigree dog breeding in the Netherlands. Guided by the question ‘How far are we allowed to interfere in the genetic make-up of dogs, through breeding and genetic modification?’, we carried out a multi-method case-driven (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Making Sense of Animal Disenhancement.Adam Henschke - 2012 - NanoEthics 6 (1):55-64.
    In this paper I look at moral debates about animal disenhancement. In particular, I propose that given the particular social institutions in which such disenhancement will operate, we ought to reject animal disenhancement. I do this by introducing the issue of animal disenhancement and presenting arguments in support of it, and showing that while these arguments are strong, they are unconvincing when we look at the full picture. Viewing animal disenhancement in a context such as high intensity food production, we (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • The Use of Animal Models in Behavioural Neuroscience Research.B. Bovenkerk & F. Kaldewaij - unknown
    Animal models are used in experiments in the behavioural neurosciences that aim to contribute to the prevention and treatment of cognitive and affective disorders in human beings, such as anxiety and depression. Ironically, those animals that are likely to be the best models for psychopathology are also likely to be considered the ones that are most morally problematic to use, if it seems probable that they have experiences that are similar to human experiences that we have strong reasons to avoid (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Confining ‘Disenhanced’ Animals.John Hadley - 2012 - NanoEthics 6 (1):41-46.
    Abstract Drawing upon evolutionary theory and the work of Daniel Dennett and Nicholas Agar, I offer an argument for broadening discussion of the ethics of disenhancement beyond animal welfare concerns to a consideration of animal “biopreferences”. Short of rendering animals completely unconscious or decerebrate, it is reasonable to suggest that disenhanced animals will continue to have some preferences. To the extent that these preferences can be understood as what Agar refers to as “plausible naturalizations” for familiar moral concepts like beliefs (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Animal Disenhancement in Moral Context.Korinn N. Murphy & William P. Kabasenche - 2018 - NanoEthics 12 (3):225-236.
    To mitigate animal suffering under industrial farming conditions, biotechnology companies are pursuing the development of genetically disenhanced animals. Recent advances in gene editing biotechnology have brought this to reality. In one of the first discussions of the ethics of disenhancement, Thompson argued that it is hard to find compelling reasons to oppose it. We offer an argument against disenhancement that draws upon parallels with human disenhancement, ecofeminism’s concern with the “logic of domination,” and a relational ethic that seeks to preserve (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • An Overview of Engineering Approaches to Improving Agricultural Animal Welfare.Candace Croney, William Muir, Ji-Qin Ni, Nicole Olynk Widmar & Gary Varner - 2018 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 31 (2):143-159.
    In this essay, we provide an overview of how production systems can be re-engineered to improve the welfare of the animals involved. At least three potential options exist: engineering their environments to better fit the animals, engineering the animals themselves to better fit their environments, and eliminating the animals from the system by growing meat in vitro rather than on farms. The morality of consuming animal products and the conditions under which agricultural animals are maintained remain highly contentious, and when (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Animal Killing and Postdomestic Meat Production.Istvan Praet & Frédéric Leroy - 2017 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 30 (1):67-86.
    The act of animal killing affects the human psyche in manners that are culturally contingent. Throughout history, societal attitudes towards the taking of animal lives have mostly been based on deference and/or dominion. Postdomestic societies have evolved in fundamentally different ways. Meat production is abundant yet concealed, animals are categorized and stereotyped, and slaughter has become a highly disquieting activity. Increased awareness of postdomestic meat production systems raises a moral polemic and provokes disgust in some consumer segments. Overall, a heterogeneous (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Dignity of Diminished Animals: Species Norms and Engineering to Improve Welfare.Marcus Schultz-Bergin - 2017 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 20 (4):843-856.
    The meteoric rise of CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing technology has ignited discussions of engineering agricultural animals to improve their welfare. While some have proposed enhancing animals, for instance by engineering for disease resistance, others have suggested we might diminish animals to improve their welfare. By reducing or eliminating species-typical capacities, the expression of which is frustrated under current conditions, animal diminishment could reduce or eliminate the suffering that currently accompanies industrial animal agriculture. Although diminishment could reduce animal suffering, there is a (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Using Breeding Technologies to Improve Farm Animal Welfare: What is the Ethical Relevance of Telos?K. Kramer & F. L. B. Meijboom - 2021 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 34 (1):1-18.
    Some breeding technology applications are claimed to improve animal welfare: this includes potential applications of genomics and genome editing to improve animals’ resistance to environmental stress, to genetically alter features which in current practice are changed invasively, or to reduce animals’ capacity for suffering. Such applications challenge how breeding technologies are evaluated, which paradigmatically proceeds from a welfare perspective. Whether animal welfare will indeed improve may be unanswerable until proposed applications have been developed and tested sufficiently and until agreement is (...)
    Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Is Moral Status Good for You?Thomas Douglas - forthcoming - In Stephen Clarke, Hazem Zohny & Julian Savulescu (eds.), Rethinking Moral Status. Oxford, UK:
    Should we cognitively alter animals in ways that might change their moral status? There has been some discussion of this question. For example, Chan (2009) and Chan and Harris (2001) consider whether we should radically enhance the cognitive capacities of animals, while Thompson (2008) and Shriver (2009) argue that we should in fact substantially disenhance some animals to protect them from suffering. More controversially, some have countenanced radical and possibly moral status-altering transformations of human persons. ... One question relevant to (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Valuing Animals as They Are—Whether They Feel It or Not.C. E. Abbate - 2020 - European Journal of Philosophy 28 (3):770-788.
    Dressing up animals in ridiculous costumes, shaming dogs on the internet, playing Big Buck Hunter at the local tavern, feeding vegan food to cats, and producing and consuming “knockout” animals, what, if anything, do these acts have in common? In this article, I develop two respect-based arguments that explain how these acts are morally problematic, even though they might not always, if ever, affect the experiential welfare of animals. While these acts are not ordinary wrongs, they are animal dignitary wrongs.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • 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. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Making Better Sense of Animal Disenhancement: A Reply to Henschke.Marcus Schultz-Bergin - 2014 - NanoEthics 8 (1):101-109.
    In "Making Sense of Animal Disenhancement" Adam Henschke provides a framework for fully understanding and evaluating animal disenhancement. His conclusion is that animal disenhancement is neither morally nor pragmatically justified. In this paper I argue that Henschke misapplies his own framework for understanding disenhancement, resulting in a stronger conclusion than is justified. In diagnosing his misstep, I argue that the resources he has provided us, combined with my refinements, result in two new avenues for inquiry: an application of concepts from (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Genetically Modifying Livestock for Improved Welfare: A Path Forward.Adam Shriver & Emilie McConnachie - 2018 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 31 (2):161-180.
    In recent years, humans’ ability to selectively modify genes has increased dramatically as a result of the development of new, more efficient, and easier genetic modification technology. In this paper, we argue in favor of using this technology to improve the welfare of agricultural animals. We first argue that using animals genetically modified for improved welfare is preferable to the current status quo. Nevertheless, the strongest argument against pursuing gene editing for welfare is that there are alternative approaches to addressing (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • CIFERAE: A Bestiary in Five Fingers, by Tom Tyler [Book Review].Rodolfo Piskorski - unknown
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Rabbits, Stoats and the Predator Problem: Why a Strong Animal Rights Position Need Not Call for Human Intervention to Protect Prey From Predators.Josh Milburn - 2015 - Res Publica 21 (3):273-289.
    Animal rights positions face the ‘predator problem’: the suggestion that if the rights of nonhuman animals are to be protected, then we are obliged to interfere in natural ecosystems to protect prey from predators. Generally, rather than embracing this conclusion, animal ethicists have rejected it, basing this objection on a number of different arguments. This paper considers but challenges three such arguments, before defending a fourth possibility. Rejected are Peter Singer’s suggestion that interference will lead to more harm than good, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Taking Responsibility for Cloning: Discourses of Care and Knowledge in Biotechnological Approaches to Nonhuman Life.Jessica L. W. Carey - 2015 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28 (3):589-599.
    This article examines the practice of animal cloning in relation to discourses of care and responsibility, in particular a common cultural interpretation of care theorized by Michel Foucault. This interpretation figures care as a “pastoral” relation premised in essential differences between carers and objects of care, and its interspecies implications are increasingly drawing the attention of theorists in animal studies. This article argues that, perhaps despite appearances, animal welfare in the form of pastoral care and abstract conceptualizations of animals that (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Gene Doping—in Animals? Ethical Issues at the Intersection of Animal Use, Gene Editing, and Sports Ethics.Carolyn P. Neuhaus & Brendan Parent - 2019 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 28 (1):26-39.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Animal Consciousness.Colin Allen & Michael Trestman - 2005 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   24 citations