Ethicists have tended to treat the psychology of attributing mental states to animals as an entirely separate issue from the moral importance of animals’ mental states. In this paper I bring these two issues together. I argue for two theses, one descriptive and one normative. The descriptive thesis holds that ordinary human agents use what are generally called phenomenal mental states to assign moral considerability to animals. I examine recent empirical research on the attribution of phenomenal states and agential states (...) to argue that phenomenal mental states are the primary factor, psychologically, for judging an animal to be morally considerable. I further argue that, given the role of phenomenal states in assigning moral considerability, certain theories in animal ethics will meet significant psychological resistance. The normative thesis holds that ethicists must take the psychology of attributing mental states into account when constructing moral ideals concerning animals. I draw from the literature in political philosophy on ideal and non-ideal theory to argue that non-ideal theories for animals must account for human psychology because—like current social and political conditions—human psychology limits the achievement of moral ideals. (shrink)

Animals and TechnoscienceThe essays in the section “Animals in technoscientific developments” have been collected from the submissions to the 3rd European Conference of Critical Animal Studies that I organized in Karlsruhe on 28–30 November 2013. The aim of the conference was to stimulate critical scholars to engage on the multifaceted relationships between animals and technosciences, an under-researched topic.Technoscience has become an important concept in the current debate on the epistemic and normative changes taking place in how scientific and technological research (...) is currently being conducted. Although there are different modes of describing technoscience , generally speaking the term refers to a means of developing knowledge in which it is not possible to separate the scientific from the technological . In contrast to the “traditional mode o .. (shrink)

Although suffering in Schopenhauer’s works may be explained by how the will to life is objectified in the world, a more precise inquiry leads us to elucidate the significance of this experience in his writings. This article claims in the first place that suffering in this author’s works is triggered by multiple sources and takes various forms. In fact, and this is the article’s second claim, these sources coincide with some later scholars’ characterizations of modern suffering. The main aim is (...) to show the value of Schopenhauer’s works in understanding modern malaise. This article is divided into 4 parts: in the first part, some considerations about suffering and modernity are indicated; in the second part, the place of suffering in Schopenhauer’s works is explored; in the third part, some of suffering’s sources are analysed; finally, a number of dimensions that may be of great value in better understanding modern malaise are noted. (shrink)