DOCSLIB.ORG

Animals, Moral Risk and Moral Considerability

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Animals, Moral Risk and Moral Considerability Durham E-Theses Animals, moral risk and moral considerability Tanner, Julia K. H. How to cite: Tanner, Julia K. H. (2007) Animals, moral risk and moral considerability, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/2477/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk Animals, Moral Risk and Moral Considerability The copyright of this thesis rests with the author or the university to which it was submitted. No quotation from it, or information derived from it may be published without the prior written consent of the author or university, and any information derived from it should be acknowledged. Name: Julia K. H. Tanner Degree for which thesis is being submitted: Ph.D University: University of Durham Department: Philosophy Department Year of submission: 2007 The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published in any format including electronic and the internet, without the author's prior written consent. All information derived from this thesis must be acknowledged appropriately. With thanks to the Royal Institute ofPhilosophy (Jacobsen Fellowship) for the support I have received 1 7 OCl 2007 Animals, Moral Risk and Moral Considerability Julia K. H. Tanner Abstract I believe that accounts of the moral considerability of animals can be strengthened in an interesting and novel way if attention is paid to moral risk and epistemic responsibility. In this thesis I argue for a sentience-based account of moral considerability. The argument from marginal cases gives us a reason to prefer accounts of moral considerability that include animals; if we think marginal humans are morally considerable we must accept that animals are too. Moral uncertainty gives us another reason to include animals. When we are making moral decisions we ought to minimise the amount of moral risk we take. I call this the 'cautious approach'. We cannot know for certain which account of moral considerability is correct. Given that we are trying to do what is right we should avoid any course of action that may be wrong. I will argue that accounts of moral considerability that exclude animals are taking an unnecessary moral risk: animals might be morally considerable and if they are most of our current treatment of them is wrong. When assessing risk one of the things that needs to be taken into account are benefits and losses. I will argue that conceding animals moral status will benefit humans. I argue that we should favour a sentience-based account of moral consideration because it is the least risky and most epistemically responsible; this gives us extra reasons to prefer it. I outline respect utilitarianism, which makes provision for protecting individuals. On this account we ought to give the interests of sentient beings (at least all vertebrates) equal consideration. Animals' interests not to be eaten and/or used for testing are sufficiently weighty to dictate that most westerners ought to become vegan and testing on animals should stop. Contents Introduction: The moral considerability of animals- the background .... 1 I. Background to the debate: The traditional picture - The link between moral agency and moral considerability...................................................... 1 i. Kant 's account ofmoral considerability ... ............................... 3 ii. Contractarian accounts ofmoral considerability ... ..................... 3 iii. Other accounts ofmoral considerability ................................. 4 iv. Non-moral agents have been neglected... ................................. 5 11. How to defme philosophical concepts ............................................. 6 Ill. Moral considerability defmed ...................................................... 9 i. Previous definitions ofmoral considerability .............................. 9 ii. Features ofmoral considerability ... ...................................... 10 iii. Moral considerabi/ity defined ... .......................................... 12 iv. Consensus on moral considerability ...... ................................ 12 IV. Moral patients ....................................................................... 13 i. Traditional definitions ofmoral patiency ... ............................ 13 ii. My definition ofmoral patiency ..................... ...................... 15 V. How should we approach moral considerability? ............................... 17 VI. Structure of thesis .................................................................. 17 VII. Summary and Conclusion ........................................................ 18 Chapter one: The Argument from Marginal Cases ............................. 19 Introduction .............................................................................. 19 1. 1 The Argument from Marginal Cases outlined .................................. 19 11 i. AMC ...... .................................................................... 19 ii. Which humans are marginal? ... .......................................... 20 iii. Different versions ofAMC ... .............................................. 21 iv. My version ofAMC .........................................................22 1.2 Objections to AMC ............................................................... 24 i. Moral theories do not need to account for unusual cases ............24 ii. AMC is self-defeating ... ................................................... 25 iii. It is not clear what status marginal humans have ... .................. 25 iv. Abilities ofanimals in comparison to marginal humans ... ........... 26 v. Anthropomorphism ...................................................... ... 27 vi. The slippery slope argument ........................................... ... 28 vii. Some criteria do separate all humans from all animals ............... 35 1.3 Species .............................................................................. 36 i. Definition ofSpeciesism ... ................................................ 36 ii. Different forms ofspeciesism ... .......................................... 38 iii. Objections to speciesism ................................................... 38 1.4 Potential ..............................................................................43 i. Different kinds ofpotential ... ............................................ .43 ii. Potential is not the same as realised potential ... ..................... .43 iii. Absurd consequence ...................................................... .44 iv. Only some marginal humans have potential ........................... .45 1. 5 The argument from kinds ........................................................ .46 i. What does kind mean? .................................................... .46 ii. AFK is invalid ... ............................................................ 48 iii. Racism and sexism ......................................................... .49 iv. Difference in degree not in kind ... ...................................... .49 lll v. AFK is self-defeating ... ................................................... 50 vi. Status by association ....................................................... 50 vii. AFK is an ad hoc addition ............................................. .... 51 1. 6 Similarity argument. ............................................................... 51 i. SA is ad hoc ................................................................. 52 ii. Animals are similar to humans too ....................................... 52 iii. SA is an argument from analogy .................................... ..... 52 1. 7 Relationships and reciprocity .................................................... 53 i. Relationships as the source ofmoral concern ... ....................... 53 ii. Reciprocity as fairness ..................................................... 53 iii. Marginal humans do not have strong relationships ..................... 54 iv. We do have relationships with animals that they can reciprocate ... 54 v. Relationships should not ground ethic ................................... 55 vi. It justifies racism and sexism .. ........................................... 55 1.8 The religious argument ............................................................ 56 i. What is a soul ............................................................... 56 ii. Can animals have souls? ... ............................................... 57 iii. Burden ofproof ........................................................ .... 57 iv. Why is a soul a relevant difference? ...................................... 57 v. Only the truly religious can adopt this argument ...................... 58 1.9 Summary and conclusion ......................................................... 58 Chapter Two: Moral uncertainty, risk and epistemic responsibility
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2. Animal Ethics
    2. Animal ethics It was started to provide animal welfare and stop cruel practices on animals, for example factory farming, animal testing, using animals for experimentation or for entertainment. In the most of Western philosophy animals were considered as beings without moral standing, namely those that do not have to be included into our moral choices. The very typical example of this approach is the Cartesian one, according to Rene Descartes (1596-1650), animals are just simple machines that cannot experience pain. The philosopher was known for making vivisections on living animals and claiming that none of the animals could feel the pain during this. In consequence of this approach until modern times there were conducted many unnecessary and cruel experiments with animal usage, also animal’s condition at factory farms or in entrainment were terrible. All these practices caused a huge amount of suffering of animals. The approach to animals was changed with Peter Singer’s influential book on Animal Liberation (1975). Singer raised the issue that animals can suffer and amount of suffering that they experience is not worth what we gain from these cruel practices. His argumentation was utilitarian, which is one of the approaches of normative ethics. Deontological and utilitarian argumentation in animal ethics Normative ethics aims at providing moral standards that regulate right and wrong conduct. This may involve articulating the good habits that we should acquire, the duties that we should follow, or the consequences of our behavior on others. The most popular approaches to normative theory are: deonotology and conseqentialism. The word deontology derives from the Greek words for duty (deon) and science (or study) of (logos).
    [Show full text]
  • MAC1 Abstracts – Oral Presentations
    Oral Presentation Abstracts OP001 Rights, Interests and Moral Standing: a critical examination of dialogue between Regan and Frey. Rebekah Humphreys Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom This paper aims to assess R. G. Frey’s analysis of Leonard Nelson’s argument (that links interests to rights). Frey argues that claims that animals have rights or interests have not been established. Frey’s contentions that animals have not been shown to have rights nor interests will be discussed in turn, but the main focus will be on Frey’s claim that animals have not been shown to have interests. One way Frey analyses this latter claim is by considering H. J. McCloskey’s denial of the claim and Tom Regan’s criticism of this denial. While Frey’s position on animal interests does not depend on McCloskey’s views, he believes that a consideration of McCloskey’s views will reveal that Nelson’s argument (linking interests to rights) has not been established as sound. My discussion (of Frey’s scrutiny of Nelson’s argument) will centre only on the dialogue between Regan and Frey in respect of McCloskey’s argument. OP002 Can Special Relations Ground the Privileged Moral Status of Humans Over Animals? Robert Jones California State University, Chico, United States Much contemporary philosophical work regarding the moral considerability of nonhuman animals involves the search for some set of characteristics or properties that nonhuman animals possess sufficient for their robust membership in the sphere of things morally considerable. The most common strategy has been to identify some set of properties intrinsic to the animals themselves.
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vitae
    Curriculum Vitae Name: Daniel A. Dombrowski Birthdate: August 8, l953 Citizenship: USA Address: Philosophy Department; Seattle University; Seattle, WA 98122 Phone: 206-296-5465 E-mail: <[email protected]> Education: University of Maine, B.A., l974 Saint Louis University, Ph.D., l978 Books: l. Plato's Philosophy of History (Washington, DC: University Press of America, l98l), 217 pp. 2. The Philosophy of Vegetarianism (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, l984), 188 pp. Also Vegetarianism: The Philosophy Behind the Ethical Diet (London: Thorsons, l985), 188 pp. Forward by Peter Singer. 3. Thoreau the Platonist (Frankfurt: Verlag Peter Lang, l986), 219 pp. 4. Hartshorne and the Metaphysics of Animal Rights (Albany: State University of New York Press, l988), 159 pp. 5. Christian Pacifism (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1991), 181 pp. 6. St. John of the Cross: An Appreciation (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992), 219 pp. 7. Analytic Theism, Hartshorne, and the Concept of God (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1996), 247 pp. 8. Babies and Beasts: The Argument from Marginal Cases (Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 1997), 221 pp. 9. Kazantzakis and God (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997), 193 pp. 10. A Brief, Liberal, Catholic Defense of Abortion, with Robert Deltete (Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 2000), 158 pp. Also Una Difesa Cattolica Dell’Aborto. Tr. Susi Ferrarello (Rome: Aracne, 2013), 157 pp. 1 11. Not Even a Sparrow Falls: The Philosophy of Stephen R. L. Clark (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 2000), 366 pp. 12. Rawls and Religion: The Case for Political Liberalism (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2001), 192 pp.
    [Show full text]
  • “Good Death” in Small Animals and Consequences for Euthanasia in Animal Law and Veterinary Practice
    animals Article Philosophy of a “Good Death” in Small Animals and Consequences for Euthanasia in Animal Law and Veterinary Practice Kirsten Persson 1,*, Felicitas Selter 2, Gerald Neitzke 2 and Peter Kunzmann 1 1 Stiftung Tierärztliche Hochschule Hannover, Bünteweg 9, 30559 Hannover, Germany; [email protected] 2 Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Carl-Neuberg-Straße 1, 30625 Hannover, Germany; [email protected] (F.S.); [email protected] (G.N.) * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 30 November 2019; Accepted: 7 January 2020; Published: 13 January 2020 Simple Summary: Euthanasia in veterinary practice is often discussed as one of the profession’s major burdens. At the same time, it is meant to bring relief to terminally ill and/or severely suffering animal patients. This article examines “euthanasia” from a philosophical perspective regarding different definitions and underlying basic assumptions concerning the meaning of death and welfare for nonhuman animals. These theoretical issues will then be discussed in relation to laws and guidelines on euthanasia and practical challenges with end-of-life decisions in small animal practice. Factors which are identified as potential causes of the complex problems regarding euthanasia are as follows: the confusing framework for euthanasia in law and soft regulations; the inclusion of many stakeholders’ perspectives in end-of-life decision-making; potential conflicts between the veterinarians’ personal morality and legal requirements and professional expectations; and, most of all, the veterinarians’ lack of awareness for underlying philosophical assumptions regarding possible understandings of euthanasia. Different practical suggestions are made to clarify and facilitate euthanasia in small animal practice.
    [Show full text]
  • Book Reviews
    Book Reviews Robin ATTFIELD. Environmental Ethics. Cambridge: Polity, 2014. 278 pp. The counterculture of the 1960s gave rise to the plea for new moral values: a new environmental ethic. While some works in this discipline still give the impression that ‘environmental ethics’ is a label for a particular set of norms, Robin Attfield correctly points out that it is just another field of application of normative enquiry, which encom- passes very diverse substantial views. As such, environmental ethics has made its way into university and college courses, where it is accompanied by partly overlapping fields of applied ethics, such as climate ethics, population ethics and animal ethics. The first edition of Attfield’s Environmental Ethics appeared around the turn of the new millennium and was meant to assist students, researchers and scholars in this discipline. It intro- duced relevant concepts and issues and it discussed a wide range of relevant schools of thought. Attfield also defended his own normative theory, which is called ‘biocentric consequentialism’. Throughout the book, Attfield provided opportunities to pause and review the issues raised in proceeding sections. Furthermore, he offered chapter summaries, a glossary of key terms, and suggestions for further reading as well as useful websites. The second edition retains these features, but is fully revised and expanded, most notably with a chapter on climate ethics. This makes for the following outline: Chapter 1 provides a categorization of environmental problems and introduces theories about the genesis of these problems. Chapter 2 introduces the major contending views concerning which entities ought to be given direct moral consideration: only humans or all sentient beings, or even plants or collectives, such as species or ecosystems? Chapter 3 explores in more detail whether a concern for human good covers all that matters morally and inquires to what extent going beyond it is useful and even possible.
    [Show full text]
  • The Inconsistencies of the Replaceability Argument A
    THE INCONSISTENCIES OF THE REPLACEABILITY ARGUMENT A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Humanities By CAITLIN MARIE BAUER B.A., Wright State University, 2011 2015 Wright State University WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL April 27 2015 I HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THE THESIS PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION BY Caitlin Marie Bauer ENTITLED The Inconsistencies of the Replaceability Argument BE ACCEPTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF Master of Humanities. _______________________________ Scott Wilson, Ph.D. Thesis Director _______________________________ Valerie Stoker, Ph.D. Director, Master of Humanities Program Committee on Final Examination _______________________________ Scott Wilson, Ph.D. _______________________________ Erik Banks, Ph.D. _______________________________ Julienne Weinzimmer, Ph.D. _______________________________ Robert E.W. Fyffe, Ph.D. Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School ABSTRACT Bauer, Caitlin Marie. M.Hum. Master of Humanities Program, Wright State University, 2015. The Inconsistencies of the Replaceability Argument. In this paper, I will argue against Peter Singer's replaceability argument. I start by showing how Singer's ethical theory of preference-utilitarianism leads to his assertion that everyone should be vegetarian, and later his conclusion that some animals are replaceable. To refute Singer, I argue that death deprives sentient beings of pleasure, and any other good they are capable of experiencing, so death is harmful to animals. Next, I discuss one last claim central to Singer's replaceability argument, that merely sentient animals are not the same individual between periods of consciousness because they have no memory or psychological connections. I refute the claim that they don't retain their individuality by arguing that their individuality is biological, rather than psychology.
    [Show full text]
  • Vegetarian Ecofeminism: a Review Essay
    Vegetarian Ecofeminism: A Review Essay Gaard, Greta Claire. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, Volume 23, Number 3, 2002, pp. 117-146 (Article) Published by University of Nebraska Press DOI: 10.1353/fro.2003.0006 For additional information about this article http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/fro/summary/v023/23.3gaard.html Access provided by Tsinghua University Library (23 Apr 2013 06:09 GMT) 08-N2534 1/17/03 8:47 AM Page 117 Vegetarian Ecofeminism A Review Essay greta gaard Although the roots of ecofeminism can be located in the work of women gar- deners, outdoor enthusiasts, environmental writers, botanists, scientists, ani- mal welfare activists, and abolitionists over the past two centuries, ecofemi- nism’sfirst articulation in the 1980s was shaped by the convergence of the peace, antinuclear, and feminist movements. In the past two decades ecofeminism has developed so rapidly that the time for a broad review of it has already passed; even recent taxonomies do not adequately describe its internal variations. For these reasons, I have chosen to trace the branch of ecofeminism that has been the subject of most disagreement by feminists, ecofeminists, and environmen- talists and is the least understood. This misunderstanding (and the subsequent misrepresentation) of vegetarian ecofeminism must be addressed, I will argue, because this branch of ecofeminism is the logical outgrowth of both feminism and ecofeminism. For if ecofeminism can be seen as the offspring of feminism, then vegetarian ecofeminism is surely feminism’s third generation. Since its inception ecofeminism has had a contentious relationship with the idea of animal liberation. While some ecofeminists have remained silent on the topic of animals, others have emphasized the oppression of nonhuman ani- mals (speciesism) as implicit within an ecofeminist analysis, arguing that speciesism functions like and is inherently linked to racism, sexism, classism, heterosexism, and naturism.
    [Show full text]
  • ANIMAL SPIRIT the Animal Interfaith Alliance Magazine Spring 2018 - Issue 8
    ANIMAL SPIRIT The Animal Interfaith Alliance Magazine Spring 2018 - Issue 8 Faiths Working Together for Animals In This Issue: Animals and the Law Animal Rights, Unnecessary Suffering and Our Dominion - Prof. Gary Francione & Prof. Anna Charlton The Law and Campaigning for Animal Protection - David Thomas Save the Asian Elephant: Interview with Duncan McNair KHS - Abigail Scott Presentation to the European Parliament on REACH - Dr Andre Menache Bees-at-Law - Noël Sweeney New Animal Welfare Bill & Labour’s Animal Welfare Plan Special Feature: Vijay Shah - A Jain, a Vegan and an Astronaut Contender www.animal-interfaith-alliance.com 1 People Member Organisations President: - Satish Kumar (Jain) Anglican Society for the Welfare of Animals (ASWA) - www.aswa.org.uk Vice-President: - Dr Deborah Jones Animals in Islam - www.animalsinislam.com (Vice Chair - CCA) The Bhagvatinandji Education & Health Trust - www.beht.org Catholic Concern for Animals (CCA) - www.catholic-animals.com Patrons: Christian Vegetarians & Vegans UK - www.christian-vegetariansvegans.org.uk Kay, Duchess of Hamilton Christian Vegetarian Association (CVA US) - www.christianveg.org Rev. Christa Blanke (Christian) Dharma Voices for Animals (DVA) (Buddhist) - www.dharmavoicesforanimals.org Joyce D’Silva (Ambassador CIWF) Institute of Jainology (IOJ) - www.jainology.org Nitin Mehta MBE (Jain) Dr André Menache (Jewish) The Jewish Vegetarian Society (JVS) - www.jvs.org Dr Alpesh Patel (Hindu) The Mahavir Trust Dr Matthieu Ricard (Buddhist) Oshwal Association of the UK (OAUK) - www.oshwal.co.uk Dr Richard D. Ryder (Ethicist) Pan-Orthodox Concern for Animals - www.panorthodoxconcernforanimals.org Anant Shah (Jain) Quaker Concern for Animals (QCA) - www.quaker-animals.co.uk Muhammad Safa (Muslim) Sadhu Vaswani Centre (Hindu) - www.sadhuvaswani.org Ajit & Charanjit Singh MBE (Sikh) The Young Jains - www.youngjains.org.uk Board: Rev.
    [Show full text]
  • Speciesism: a Form of Bigotry Or a Justified View? Evelyn Pluhar
    -------~------------ - SPECIESISM: A FORM OF BIGOTRY OR A JUSTIFIED VIEW? EVELYN PLUHAR Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity Fayette Campuscampus Editor's Note: An abridgedabridged version of this paper and thethe commentary on it by Prof.Prof. Sapontzis were delivered atat the December, 1987, meetingmeeting of the Society for the StudyStudy of Ethics and Animals held inin New York City.City. g~;~~~:Fr:iiil~~JmoDs. He ..... York: Dover, 1979 We humans tend to view ourselves as the paradigms of morally considerable beings. Humans, it is often claimed, are the most morally valuable (perhaps the ~ morally PHILOSOPHY valuable) beings on this planet. It is commonly assumed that "lesser" beings 83 BRIWEENBEIWEEN THE SPECIES should be sacrificed for our benefit. When For those who continue to think that it is not pressed to provide a rational defense for the wrong to eat and vivisect non humans, but belief in human pre-eminence, philosophers indefensible to do so to even less well have argued that our autonomous, richly mentally endowed humans, the issue should complex lives warrant our special status. be very pressing indeed. They stand accused Few, however, have argued that humans who of moral inconsistency by two very are incapable of autonomy may properly be different groups. Those who have become sacrificed to further the interests of normal convinced that moral considerability is not humans. restricted to humanity are urging that we cease even the painless exploitation of It was inevitable that this prima facie non humans. According to quite another, inconsistency would be challenged. Writers very disturbing view, we should consider like Peter Singer and Tom Regan advanced exploiting mentally defective humans in the argument from marginal cases to show addition to nonhumans.
    [Show full text]
  • The Replaceability Argument
    Uppsala universitet Filosofiska institutionen The Replaceability Argument - An evaluation of a utilitarian argument for the permissibility of purchasing meat Hampus Gunnarsson C-uppsats VT-18 Handledare: Simon Rosenqvist Contents 1. Introduction 2 2. The Replaceability Argument 2 3. Premise One: The Causal Impotence Problem 4 3.1 Causal Impotence 5 3.2 Counterarguments 6 3.3 Responses to the Counterarguments 7 3.4 Discussion 9 3.5 Conclusions 10 4. Premise Two: Living a Valuable Life 11 4.1 Two Theories of Welfare 12 4.2 The Lives of Animals in the Meat Industry 14 4.3 Conclusions 17 5. Premise Three: Alternative Acts 17 5.1 Environmental Effects 18 5.2 Human Health Effects 20 5.3 Conclusions 21 6. Conclusion 22 1 1. Introduction Utilitarian arguments for the permissibility of purchasing meat have a long history. In 1914, the British writer and animal rights campaigner Henry Salt lamented what he called the “logic of the larder” – the way meat purchases are justified by the alleged fact that they allow the slaughtered animals to live in the first place.1 Recent proponents of this view include Torbjörn Tännsjö who thinks that as long as animals reared for slaughter live valuable lives, the practice of eating meat isn’t problematic. 2 This type of argument is also described as one of the possible utilitarian arguments for meat consumption by Bob Fisher in his contribution to The Oxford Handbook of ​ Food Ethics.3 The thinkers who argue for versions of the logic of the larder model ​ stand in sharp contrast to the large number of contemporary utilitarian philosophers who claim that the impermissibility of buying meat follows from the utilitarian theory.4 The aim of this thesis is to examine and evaluate the utilitarian argument for the permissibility of buying meat that I call “the replaceability argument”.
    [Show full text]
  • Applied Ethics in Animal Research: Philosophy, Regulation, and Laboratory Applications John P
    Purdue University Purdue e-Pubs Purdue University Press e-books Purdue University Press 1-4-2002 Applied Ethics in Animal Research: Philosophy, Regulation, and Laboratory Applications John P. Gluck Tony DiPasquale F. Barbara Orlans Follow this and additional works at: http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/purduepress_ebooks Recommended Citation Gluck, John P.; DiPasquale, Tony; and Orlans, F. Barbara, "Applied Ethics in Animal Research: Philosophy, Regulation, and Laboratory Applications" (2002). Purdue University Press e-books. Book 15. http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/purduepress_ebooks/15 This document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please contact [email protected] for additional information. Gluck, DiPasquale, Orlans Gluck, DiPasquale, Applied Ethics / Veterinary Studies Few contemporary issues arouse as much passionate rhetoric as the ethics of labo- ratory animal use. These essays challenge people of good faith to face the issues Applied Ethics in relevant to the ethics of using animals in biomedical and behavioral research. They discuss issues of philosophy, statutory regulation, and laboratory application of ethics in ways depleted of sheer rhetoric and attempts to manipulate. The result is an open dialogue that allows readers to reach a deepened understanding of the Animal Research issue and to form their own opinions. “This is an excellent compilation of analyses from some of the leading thinkers in Applied Ethics in Animal Research the world on animal research ethics. I would recommend it as a useful addition to anyone’s library.”—ANDREW N. ROWAN, PH.D., Senior Vice President, Philosophy, Regulation, Humane Society of the United States “This book advances our understanding of an inherently compelling, complex, and and Laboratory Applications conflicted field.
    [Show full text]
  • Vulnerability, Care, Power, and Virtue: Thinking Other Animals Anew
    Vulnerability, Care, Power, and Virtue: Thinking Other Animals Anew by Stephen Thierman A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Department of Philosophy University of Toronto © Copyright by Stephen Thierman 2012 Vulnerability, Care, Power, and Virtue: Thinking Other Animals Anew Stephen Thierman Doctor of Philosophy Department of Philosophy University of Toronto 2012 Abstract This thesis is a work of practical philosophy situated at the intersection of bioethics, environmental ethics, and social and political thought. Broadly, its topic is the moral status of nonhuman animals. One of its pivotal aims is to encourage and foster the “sympathetic imaginative construction of another’s reality”1 and to determine how that construction might feed back on to understandings of ourselves and of our place in this world that we share with so many other creatures. In the three chapters that follow the introduction, I explore a concept (vulnerability), a tradition in moral philosophy (the ethic of care), and a philosopher (Wittgenstein) that are not often foregrounded in discussions of animal ethics. Taken together, these sections establish a picture of other animals (and of the kinship that humans share with them) that can stand as an alternative to the utilitarian and rights theories that have been dominant in this domain of philosophical inquiry. 1 Josephine Donovan, “Attention to Suffering: Sympathy as a Basis for the Ethical Treatment of Animals,” in The Feminist Care Tradition in Animal Ethics, ed. Josephine Donovan and Carol Adams (New York: Columbia University Press, 2007), 179. ii In my fifth and sixth chapters, I extend this conceptual framework by turning to the work of Michel Foucault.
    [Show full text]