DOCSLIB.ORG

Download Book

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Download Book The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics 33 Bernice Bovenkerk Jozef Keulartz Editors Animals in Our Midst: The Challenges of Co-existing with Animals in the Anthropocene The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics Volume 33 Series Editors Michiel Korthals, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands Paul B. Thompson, Michigan State University, East Lansing, USA The ethics of food and agriculture is confronted with enormous challenges. Scien- tific developments in the food sciences promise to be dramatic; the concept of life sciences, that comprises the integral connection between the biological sciences, the medical sciences and the agricultural sciences, got a broad start with the genetic revo- lution. In the mean time, society, i.e., consumers, producers, farmers, policymakers, etc, raised lots of intriguing questions about the implications and presuppositions of this revolution, taking into account not only scientific developments, but societal as well. If so many things with respect to food and our food diet will change, will our food still be safe? Will it be produced under animal friendly conditions of husbandry and what will our definition of animal welfare be under these conditions? Will food production be sustainable and environmentally healthy? Will production consider the interest of the worst off and the small farmers? How will globalisation and liber- alization of markets influence local and regional food production and consumption patterns? How will all these developments influence the rural areas and what values and policies are ethically sound? All these questions raise fundamental and broad ethical issues and require enor- mous ethical theorizing to be approached fruitfully. Ethical reflection on criteria of animal welfare, sustainability, liveability of the rural areas, biotechnology, policies and all the interconnections is inevitable. Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics contributes to a sound, pluralistic and argumentative food and agricultural ethics. It brings together the most important and relevant voices in the field; by providing a platform for theoretical and practical contributors with respect to research and education on all levels. More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/6215 Bernice Bovenkerk · Jozef Keulartz Editors Animals in Our Midst: The Challenges of Co-existing with Animals in the Anthropocene Editors Bernice Bovenkerk Jozef Keulartz Wageningen University and Research Radboud University Wageningen, The Netherlands Nijmegen, The Netherlands This work is part of the research programme 2017-I BOO with project number 023.010.030, which is (partly) financed by the Dutch Research Council (NWO) ISSN 1570-3010 ISSN 2215-1737 (electronic) The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics ISBN 978-3-030-63522-0 ISBN 978-3-030-63523-7 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63523-7 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2021, corrected publication 2021. This book is an open access publication. Open Access This book is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribu- tion and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this book are included in the book’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the book’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland The original version of the book was revised: The author’s name is corrected from “O’Neill, J.S. and M.H. Hastings” to “David A. Leavens” in reference cross citations and list for Chapters 1 and 3. The correction to the book is available at https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63523-7_32 Acknowledgments This edited volume has benefitted considerably from the workshop that was held in Wageningen in April 2019, which was made possible by an innovative research grant from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (OZSW), titled "Anthro- pocene Ethics: Taking Animal Agency Seriously" (projectnr 016.Vidi.185.128) and an Aspasia grant (grant nr 015.014.023). The editors would like to thank Eva Meijer for her help with editing a number of the chapters. We would like to thank all the authors of this book for their interesting contributions, stimulating discussions, and collaborative spirit. We would also like to thank Inge Ruisch for her support in the organization of the workshop. We are very grateful to the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. We would furthermore like to express our gratitude to the editorial team of Springer, in particular Floor Oosting and Christopher Wilby, for their trust and the pleasant collaboration. vii Contents 1 Animals in Our Midst: An Introduction ......................... 1 Jozef Keulartz and Bernice Bovenkerk 2 Animal Conservation in the Twenty-First Century ............... 27 Hugh A. H. Jansman Part I Animal Agents 3 Taking Animal Perspectives into Account in Animal Ethics ........ 49 Eva Meijer and Bernice Bovenkerk 4 Turning to Animal Agency in the Anthropocene .................. 65 Charlotte E. Blattner 5 Animal Difference in the Age of the Selfsame .................... 79 Nathan Kowalsky 6 Should the Lion Eat Straw Like the Ox? Animal Ethics and the Predation Problem ..................................... 99 Jozef Keulartz 7 Justified Species Partiality ..................................... 123 Ronald Sandler and John Basl 8 Humanity in the Living, the Living in Humans ................... 141 Michiel Korthals 9 Comment: The Current State of Nonhuman Animal Agency ...... 155 Joost Leuven Part II Domesticated Animals 10 An Introduction to Ecomodernism .............................. 163 Hidde Boersma ix x Contents 11 Place-Making by Cows in an Intensive Dairy Farm: A Sociolinguistic Approach to Nonhuman Animal Agency ......... 177 Leonie Cornips and Louis van den Hengel 12 The Vanishing Ethics of Husbandry ............................. 203 Paul B. Thompson 13 Reimagining Human Responsibility Towards Animals for Disaster Management in the Anthropocene ................... 223 Andreia De Paula Vieira and Raymond Anthony 14 The Decisions of Wannabe Dog Keepers in the Netherlands ....... 255 Susan Ophorst and Bernice Bovenkerk 15 Comment: Animals in ‘Non-Ideal Ethics’ and ‘No-Deal Ethics’ .... 275 Erno Eskens Part III Urban Animals 16 Stray Agency and Interspecies Care: The Amsterdam Stray Cats and Their Humans ....................................... 287 Eva Meijer 17 “Eek! A Rat!” ................................................ 301 Joachim Nieuwland and Franck L. B. Meijboom 18 Interpreting the YouTube Zoo: Ethical Potential of Captive Encounters ................................................... 323 Yulia Kisora and Clemens Driessen 19 Wild Animals in the City: Considering and Connecting with Animals in Zoos and Aquariums ........................... 341 Sabrina Brando and Elizabeth S. Herrelko 20 Comment: Encountering Urban Animals: Towards the Zoöpolis .................................................. 361 Lauren E. Van Patter Part IV Wild Animals 21 Should We Provide the Bear Necessities? Climate Change, Polar Bears and the Ethics of Supplemental Feeding .............. 377 Clare Palmer 22 Understanding and Defending the Preference for Native Species ....................................................... 399 Ned Hettinger 23 Coexisting with Wolves in Cultural Landscapes: Fences as Communicative Devices ..................................... 425 Martin Drenthen Contents xi 24 Consolations of Environmental Philosophy ...................... 445 Mateusz Tokarski 25 On Hunting: Lions and Humans as Hunters ..................... 469 Charles Foster 26 Comment: Sharing Our World with Wild Animals ............... 483 J. A. A. Swart Part V Animal Artefacts 27 De-extinction and Gene Drives: The Engineering of Anthropocene Organisms .................................... 495 Christopher J. Preston 28 Does Justice Require De-extinction of the Heath Hen? ............ 513 Jennifer Welchman 29 The Welfarist Account of Disenhancement as Applied to Nonhuman Animals ......................................... 533 Adam Shriver
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Towards AI Welfare Science and Policies
    big data and cognitive computing Article Towards AI Welfare Science and Policies Soenke Ziesche 1 and Roman Yampolskiy 2,* 1 Faculty of Engineering, Science and Technology, Maldives National University, Male’ 20067, Maldives; [email protected] 2 Computer Engineering and Computer Science Department, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292, USA * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-960-789-9304 Received: 24 November 2018; Accepted: 21 December 2018; Published: 27 December 2018 Abstract: In light of fast progress in the field of AI there is an urgent demand for AI policies. Bostrom et al. provide “a set of policy desiderata”, out of which this article attempts to contribute to the “interests of digital minds”. The focus is on two interests of potentially sentient digital minds: to avoid suffering and to have the freedom of choice about their deletion. Various challenges are considered, including the vast range of potential features of digital minds, the difficulties in assessing the interests and wellbeing of sentient digital minds, and the skepticism that such research may encounter. Prolegomena to abolish suffering of sentient digital minds as well as to measure and specify wellbeing of sentient digital minds are outlined by means of the new field of AI welfare science, which is derived from animal welfare science. The establishment of AI welfare science serves as a prerequisite for the formulation of AI welfare policies, which regulate the wellbeing of sentient digital minds. This article aims to contribute to sentiocentrism through inclusion, thus to policies for antispeciesism, as well as to AI safety, for which wellbeing of AIs would be a cornerstone.
    [Show full text]
  • 104 Bus Dienstrooster & Lijnroutekaart
    104 bus dienstrooster & lijnkaart 104 Tijnje via Gorredijk - Allardsoog Bekijken In Websitemodus De 104 buslijn (Tijnje via Gorredijk - Allardsoog) heeft 4 routes. Op werkdagen zijn de diensturen: (1) Allardsoog Via Bakkeveen: 07:09 - 17:15 (2) Gorredijk Winkelcentrum: 19:15 (3) Gorredijk Winkelcentrum: 07:45 - 18:09 (4) Tijnje Winia Ikkers: 09:02 - 19:02 Gebruik de Moovit-app om de dichtstbijzijnde 104 bushalte te vinden en na te gaan wanneer de volgende 104 bus aankomt. Richting: Allardsoog Via Bakkeveen 104 bus Dienstrooster 21 haltes Allardsoog Via Bakkeveen Dienstrooster Route: BEKIJK LIJNDIENSTROOSTER maandag 07:09 - 17:15 dinsdag 07:09 - 17:15 Tijnje, Winia Ikkers 22 Winia-Ikkers, Tijnje woensdag 07:09 - 17:15 Tijnje, Postkantoor donderdag 07:09 - 17:15 41 Breewei, Tijnje vrijdag 07:09 - 17:15 Tijnje, Breewei zaterdag Niet Operationeel 5 Breewei, Tijnje zondag Niet Operationeel Terwispel, De Streek 61 De Streek, Terwispel Gorredijk, Busstation 2A H. Ringenoldusstrjitte, Gorredijk 104 bus Info Route: Allardsoog Via Bakkeveen Gorredijk, Winkelcentrum Haltes: 21 1-34 Schansburg, Gorredijk Ritduur: 42 min Samenvatting Lijn: Tijnje, Winia Ikkers, Tijnje, Gorredijk, Busstation Postkantoor, Tijnje, Breewei, Terwispel, De Streek, 26 Stationsweg, Gorredijk Gorredijk, Busstation, Gorredijk, Winkelcentrum, Gorredijk, Busstation, Gorredijk, Trimbeets, Gorredijk, Gorredijk, Trimbeets Brouwerij, Gorredijk, Nijlan, Lippenhuizen, De 6 Burgemeester Selhorststraat, Gorredijk Driehoek, Lippenhuizen, De Buorren, Hemrik, De Manege, Hemrik, Binnenwei,
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Welfare and the Paradox of Animal Consciousness
    ARTICLE IN PRESS Animal Welfare and the Paradox of Animal Consciousness Marian Dawkins1 Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK 1Corresponding author: e-mail address: [email protected] Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. Animal Consciousness: The Heart of the Paradox 2 2.1 Behaviorism Applies to Other People Too 5 3. Human Emotions and Animals Emotions 7 3.1 Physiological Indicators of Emotion 7 3.2 Behavioral Components of Emotion 8 3.2.1 Vacuum Behavior 10 3.2.2 Rebound 10 3.2.3 “Abnormal” Behavior 10 3.2.4 The Animal’s Point of View 11 3.2.5 Cognitive Bias 15 3.2.6 Expressions of the Emotions 15 3.3 The Third Component of Emotion: Consciousness 16 4. Definitions of Animal Welfare 24 5. Conclusions 26 References 27 1. INTRODUCTION Consciousness has always been both central to and a stumbling block for animal welfare. On the one hand, the belief that nonhuman animals suffer and feel pain is what draws many people to want to study animal welfare in the first place. Animal welfare is seen as fundamentally different from plant “welfare” or the welfare of works of art precisely because of the widely held belief that animals have feelings and experience emotions in ways that plants or inanimate objectsdhowever valuableddo not (Midgley, 1983; Regan, 1984; Rollin, 1989; Singer, 1975). On the other hand, consciousness is also the most elusive and difficult to study of any biological phenomenon (Blackmore, 2012; Koch, 2004). Even with our own human consciousness, we are still baffled as to how Advances in the Study of Behavior, Volume 47 ISSN 0065-3454 © 2014 Elsevier Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Animals and Ethics Fall, 2017, P
    Philosophy 174a Ethics and Animals Fall 2017 Instructor: Teaching Fellow: Chris Korsgaard Ahson Azmat 205 Emerson Hall [email protected] [email protected] Office Hours: Mondays 1:30-3:30 Description: Do human beings have moral obligations to the other animals? If so, what are they, and why? Should or could non-human animals have legal rights? Should we treat wild and domestic animals differently? Do human beings have the right to eat the other animals, raise them for that purpose on factory farms, use them in experiments, display them in zoos and circuses, make them race or fight for our entertainment, make them work for us, and keep them as pets? We will examine the work of utilitarian, Kantian, and Aristotelian philosophers, and others who have tried to answer these questions. This course, when taken for a letter grade, meets the General Education requirement for Ethical Reasoning. Sources and How to Get Them: Many of the sources from we will be reading from onto the course web site, but you will need to have copies of Singer’s Animal Liberation, Regan’s The Case for Animal Rights, Mill’s Utilitarianism and Coetzee’s The Lives of Animals. I have ordered all the main books from which we will be reading (except my own book, which is not yet published) at the Coop. The main books we will be using are: Animal Liberation, by Peter Singer. Updated edition, 2009, by Harper Collins Publishers. The Case for Animal Rights, by Tom Regan. University of California Press, 2004. Fellow Creatures: Our Obligations to the Other Animals, by Christine M.
    [Show full text]
  • Wild Animal Suffering and Vegan Outreach
    Paez, Eze (2016) Wild animal suffering and vegan outreach. Animal Sentience 7(11) DOI: 10.51291/2377-7478.1101 This article has appeared in the journal Animal Sentience, a peer-reviewed journal on animal cognition and feeling. It has been made open access, free for all, by WellBeing International and deposited in the WBI Studies Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Animal Sentience 2016.087: Paez Commentary on Ng on Animal Suffering Wild animal suffering and vegan outreach Commentary on Ng on Animal Suffering Eze Paez Department of Legal, Moral and Political Philosophy Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona Abstract: Ng’s strategic proposal seems to downplay the potential benefits of advocacy for wild animals and omit what may be the most effective strategy to reduce the harms farmed animals suffer: vegan outreach. Eze Paez, lecturer in moral and political philosophy at Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, studies normative and applied ethics, especially ontological and normative aspects of abortion and the moral consideration of nonhuman animals. He is a member of Animal Ethics. upf.academia.edu/ezepaez Underestimating the importance of wild animal suffering. Ng’s (2016) view is not that animal advocates should focus only on farmed animals, to the exclusion of those that live in the wild. He concedes that our efforts must also be directed toward raising awareness of the harms suffered by animals in nature. Nonetheless, he seems to suggest that these efforts should be minimal relative to those devoted to reducing the harms farmed animals suffer. Ng underestimates the potential benefits of advocacy for wild animals in terms of net reduction in suffering perhaps because he is overestimating people’s resistance to caring about wild animals and to intervening in nature on their behalf.
    [Show full text]
  • How Welfare Biology and Commonsense May Help to Reduce Animal Suffering
    Ng, Yew-Kwang (2016) How welfare biology and commonsense may help to reduce animal suffering. Animal Sentience 7(1) DOI: 10.51291/2377-7478.1012 This article has appeared in the journal Animal Sentience, a peer-reviewed journal on animal cognition and feeling. It has been made open access, free for all, by WellBeing International and deposited in the WBI Studies Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Ng, Yew-Kwang (2016) How welfare biology and commonsense may help to reduce animal suffering. Animal Sentience 7(1) DOI: 10.51291/2377-7478.1012 Cover Page Footnote I am grateful to Dr. Timothy D. Hau of the University of Hong Kong for assistance. This article is available in Animal Sentience: https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/ animsent/vol1/iss7/1 Animal Sentience 2016.007: Ng on Animal Suffering Call for Commentary: Animal Sentience publishes Open Peer Commentary on all accepted target articles. Target articles are peer-reviewed. Commentaries are editorially reviewed. There are submitted commentaries as well as invited commentaries. Commentaries appear as soon as they have been revised and accepted. Target article authors may respond to their commentaries individually or in a joint response to multiple commentaries. Instructions: http://animalstudiesrepository.org/animsent/guidelines.html How welfare biology and commonsense may help to reduce animal suffering Yew-Kwang Ng Division of Economics Nanyang Technological University Singapore Abstract: Welfare biology is the study of the welfare of living things. Welfare is net happiness (enjoyment minus suffering). Since this necessarily involves feelings, Dawkins (2014) has suggested that animal welfare science may face a paradox, because feelings are very difficult to study.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sexual Politics of Meat by Carol J. Adams
    THE SEXUAL POLITICS OF MEAT A FEMINISTVEGETARIAN CRITICAL THEORY Praise for The Sexual Politics of Meat and Carol J. Adams “A clearheaded scholar joins the ideas of two movements—vegetari- anism and feminism—and turns them into a single coherent and moral theory. Her argument is rational and persuasive. New ground—whole acres of it—is broken by Adams.” —Colman McCarthy, Washington Post Book World “Th e Sexual Politics of Meat examines the historical, gender, race, and class implications of meat culture, and makes the links between the prac tice of butchering/eating animals and the maintenance of male domi nance. Read this powerful new book and you may well become a vegetarian.” —Ms. “Adams’s work will almost surely become a ‘bible’ for feminist and pro gressive animal rights activists. Depiction of animal exploita- tion as one manifestation of a brutal patriarchal culture has been explored in two [of her] books, Th e Sexual Politics of Meat and Neither Man nor Beast: Feminism and the Defense of Animals. Adams argues that factory farming is part of a whole culture of oppression and insti- tutionalized violence. Th e treatment of animals as objects is parallel to and associated with patriarchal society’s objectifi cation of women, blacks, and other minorities in order to routinely exploit them. Adams excels in constructing unexpected juxtapositions by using the language of one kind of relationship to illuminate another. Employing poetic rather than rhetorical techniques, Adams makes powerful connec- tions that encourage readers to draw their own conclusions.” —Choice “A dynamic contribution toward creating a feminist/animal rights theory.” —Animals’ Agenda “A cohesive, passionate case linking meat-eating to the oppression of animals and women .
    [Show full text]
  • 4​Th​ MINDING ANIMALS CONFERENCE CIUDAD DE
    th 4 ​ MINDING ANIMALS CONFERENCE ​ CIUDAD DE MÉXICO, 17 TO 24 JANUARY, 2018 SOCIAL PROGRAMME: ROYAL PEDREGAL HOTEL ACADEMIC PROGRAMME: NATIONAL AUTONOMOUS UNIVERSITY OF MEXICO Auditorio Alfonso Caso and Anexos de la Facultad de Derecho FINAL PROGRAMME (Online version linked to abstracts. Download PDF here) 1/47 All delegates please note: ​ 1. Presentation slots may have needed to be moved by the organisers, and may appear in a different place from that of the final printed programme. Please consult the schedule located in the Conference Programme upon arrival at the Conference for your presentation time. 2. Please note that presenters have to ensure the following times for presentation to allow for adequate time for questions from the floor and smooth transition of sessions. Delegates must not stray from their allocated 20 minutes. Further, delegates are welcome to move within sessions, therefore presenters MUST limit their talk to the allocated time. Therefore, Q&A will be AFTER each talk, and NOT at the end of the three presentations. Plenary and Invited Talks – 45 min. presentation and 15 min. discussion (Q&A). 3. For panels, each panellist must stick strictly to a 10 minute time frame, before discussion with the floor commences. 4. Note that co-authors may be presenting at the conference in place of, or with the main author. For all co-authors, delegates are advised to consult the Conference Abstracts link on the Minding Animals website. Use of the term et al is provided where there is more than two authors ​ ​ of an abstract. 5. Moderator notes will be available at all front desks in tutorial rooms, along with Time Sheets (5, 3 and 1 minute Left).
    [Show full text]
  • The Scope of the Argument from Species Overlap
    bs_bs_banner Journal of Applied Philosophy,Vol.31, No. 2, 2014 doi: 10.1111/japp.12051 The Scope of the Argument from Species Overlap OSCAR HORTA ABSTRACT The argument from species overlap has been widely used in the literature on animal ethics and speciesism. However, there has been much confusion regarding what the argument proves and what it does not prove, and regarding the views it challenges.This article intends to clarify these confusions, and to show that the name most often used for this argument (‘the argument from marginal cases’) reflects and reinforces these misunderstandings.The article claims that the argument questions not only those defences of anthropocentrism that appeal to capacities believed to be typically human, but also those that appeal to special relations between humans. This means the scope of the argument is far wider than has been thought thus far. Finally, the article claims that, even if the argument cannot prove by itself that we should not disregard the interests of nonhuman animals, it provides us with strong reasons to do so, since the argument does prove that no defence of anthropocentrism appealing to non-definitional and testable criteria succeeds. 1. Introduction The argument from species overlap, which has also been called — misleadingly, I will argue — the argument from marginal cases, points out that the criteria that are com- monly used to deprive nonhuman animals of moral consideration fail to draw a line between human beings and other sentient animals, since there are also humans who fail to satisfy them.1 This argument has been widely used in the literature on animal ethics for two purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • Animals Liberation Philosophy and Policy Journal Volume 5, Issue 1
    AAnniimmaallss LLiibbeerraattiioonn PPhhiilloossoopphhyy aanndd PPoolliiccyy JJoouurrnnaall VVoolluummee 55,, IIssssuuee 11 -- 22000077 Animal Liberation Philosophy and Policy Journal Volume 5, Issue 1 2007 Edited By: Steven Best, Chief Editor ____________________________________________________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Steven Best, Chief Editor Pg. 2-3 Introducing Critical Animal Studies Steven Best, Anthony J. Nocella II, Richard Kahn, Carol Gigliotti, and Lisa Kemmerer Pg. 4-5 Extrinsic and Intrinsic Arguments: Strategies for Promoting Animal Rights Katherine Perlo Pg. 6-19 Animal Rights Law: Fundamentalism versus Pragmatism David Sztybel Pg. 20-54 Unmasking the Animal Liberation Front Using Critical Pedagogy: Seeing the ALF for Who They Really Are Anthony J. Nocella II Pg. 55-64 The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act: New, Improved, and ACLU-Approved Steven Best Pg. 65-81 BOOK REVIEWS _________________ In Defense of Animals: The Second Wave, by Peter Singer ed. (2005) Reviewed by Matthew Calarco Pg. 82-87 Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy, by Matthew Scully (2003) Reviewed by Lisa Kemmerer Pg. 88-91 Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?: Reflections on the Liberation of Animals, by Steven Best and Anthony J. Nocella, II, eds. (2004) Reviewed by Lauren E. Eastwood Pg. 92 Introduction Welcome to the sixth issue of our journal. You’ll first notice that our journal and site has undergone a name change. The Center on Animal Liberation Affairs is now the Institute for Critical Animal Studies, and the Animal Liberation Philosophy and Policy Journal is now the Journal for Critical Animal Studies. The name changes, decided through discussion among our board members, were prompted by both philosophical and pragmatic motivations.
    [Show full text]
  • Equality, Priority and Nonhuman Animals*
    Equality, Priority and Catia Faria Nonhuman Animals* Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Department of Law [email protected] http://upf.academia.edu/catiafaria Igualdad, prioridad y animales no humanos ABSTRACT: This paper assesses the implications of egali- RESUMEN: Este artículo analiza las implicaciones del iguali- tarianism and prioritarianism for the consideration of tarismo y del prioritarismo en lo que refiere a la conside- nonhuman animals. These implications have been often ración de los animales no humanos. Estas implicaciones overlooked. The paper argues that neither egalitarianism han sido comúnmente pasadas por alto. Este artículo de- nor prioritarianism can consistently deprive nonhuman fenderá que ni el igualitarismo ni el prioritarismo pueden animals of moral consideration. If you really are an egali- privar de forma consistente de consideración moral a los tarian (or a prioritarian) you are necessarily committed animales no humanos. Si realmente alguien es igualitaris- both to the rejection of speciesism and to assigning prior- ta (o prioritarista) ha de tener necesariamente una posi- ity to the interests of nonhuman animals, since they are ción de rechazo del especismo, y estar a favor de asignar the worst-off. From this, important practical consequen- prioridad a los intereses de los animales no humanos, ces follow for the improvement of the current situation of dado que estos son los que están peor. De aquí se siguen nonhuman animals. importantes consecuencias prácticas para la mejora de la situación actual de los animales no humanos. KEYWORDS: egalitarianism, prioritarianism, nonhuman ani- PALABRAS-CLAVE: igualitarismo, prioritarismo, animales no hu- mals, speciesism, equality manos, especismo, igualdad 1. Introduction It is commonly assumed that human beings should be given preferential moral consideration, if not absolute priority, over the members of other species.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ethical Consistency of Animal Equality
    1 The ethical consistency of animal equality Stijn Bruers, Sept 2013, DRAFT 2 Contents 0. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................ 5 0.1 SUMMARY: TOWARDS A COHERENT THEORY OF ANIMAL EQUALITY ........................................................................ 9 1. PART ONE: ETHICAL CONSISTENCY ......................................................................................................... 18 1.1 THE BASIC ELEMENTS ................................................................................................................................. 18 a) The input data: moral intuitions .......................................................................................................... 18 b) The method: rule universalism............................................................................................................. 20 1.2 THE GOAL: CONSISTENCY AND COHERENCE ..................................................................................................... 27 1.3 THE PROBLEM: MORAL ILLUSIONS ................................................................................................................ 30 a) Optical illusions .................................................................................................................................... 30 b) Moral illusions ....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]