DOCSLIB.ORG

Huget-Dissertation FINAL 4-28-20

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Huget-Dissertation FINAL 4-28-20 MORAL STATUS: A POLITICAL APPROACH A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of Georgetown University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy By Hailey E. Huget, M.A. Washington, D.C. February 14, 2020 Copyright 2020 by Hailey E. Huget All Rights Reserved ii For Matt, my husband; Allen, my dog; and Georgetown Alliance of Graduate Employees, my union for teaching me everything I know about cooperation iii MORAL STATUS: A POLITICAL APPROACH Hailey E. Huget, M.A. Advisor: Margaret Little, PhD Abstract In this dissertation I develop a political approach to the subject of moral status. While much of the moral status literature focuses on questions of individual morality—like whether I may permissibly eat meat for dinner or hunt animals for sport—my approach focuses upon a set of largely neglected moral status questions that arise within the realm of institutional morality. For example: are domesticated animals entitled to the social provision of food, water, shelter, and healthcare? What about human beings with severe cognitive disabilities, or who are in irreversible comas? Should we allocate resources to protect non-human animals from crime and natural disasters, as we do for human beings? To answer these questions, I develop an account of which creatures can make moral claims upon social and political institutions to protection and provision. iv Acknowledgments If much of this dissertation is about acting collectively, it is fitting that this project was completed with the help, guidance, and support of many different individuals acting together. Throughout the writing process I was grateful for the support and camaraderie of a community of graduate employees at Georgetown. Within the Philosophy department, I would like to thank fellow graduate employees Michael Barnes, Daniel Threet, Deidre Nelms, Jason Farr, Gerald Taylor, Keyvan Shafiei, Katherine Ward, Clark Donley, Quentin Fisher, and so many others for helping me think through various aspects of this project. I am also grateful to Philosophy department graduates from years above me, including Francisco Gallegos, Nabina Liebow, Anne Jeffrey, Jake Earl, Colin Hickey, and Marcus Hedahl. I am particularly grateful to Karen Rice for being my ‘dissertation accountability partner’ for the past year. Karen’s unwavering support and partnership made the work of completing the dissertation much less isolating and was instrumental in making this project a reality. I am also grateful to many graduate employees who I had the pleasure of getting to know outside of the Philosophy department who worked with me to organize our union, Georgetown Alliance of Graduate Employees. Our work together was the highlight of my experience at Georgetown; it also shaped much of this dissertation, as well as my broader philosophical worldview. Each committee member for this dissertation has made invaluable contributions, without which the project would not have come together. Their guidance and feedback during the dissertation process and during graduate school coursework shaped the philosopher I am today. I am grateful to Maggie Little, my advisor, for teaching me to think of everyday experiences and on-the-ground realities as sources of rich philosophical insight. I am grateful to Alisa Carse for her extremely detailed and constructive written feedback, which always invited me to ‘go deeper’ and confront the most substantive issues and questions. I am indebted to v Mark Murphy for holding me to the highest of standards and for always urging me to focus on advancing and centering my own positive view, rather than on poking holes in others’ arguments. All of your feedback and guidance has made this a more interesting and cohesive project than it otherwise would have been. I am extremely thankful for the financial support of Wellesley College’s Horton- Hollowell fellowship, which enabled me to complete the dissertation without also having teaching obligations. The freedom to focus exclusively on finishing the dissertation was invaluable to me and, without that freedom, I doubt this project would have come together at all. I want to thank my family for their support throughout this long process. I would not be the scholar I am today without having learned so much from all of you. Whatever writing abilities I have today came from my mom, who spent much of my childhood teaching me to value good writing and offering her own writing as a model to aspire to. Dad taught me to value good arguments and to always work to see all sides of a question or debate; these skills made me into a much better philosopher. And Hannah, my sister, has always been a role model to me. The empathy, compassion, and patience she brings to her work every day is truly inspirational. To say that I am grateful to my partner, Matthew Shields, would be an understatement. During all of the toughest parts of this project, he was there with me, providing both a sounding board for philosophical ideas and much-needed moral support. Whenever I was stuck on something, he always had just the right thing to say—a question or a comment that helped me refocus on core issues and move forward productively. My transition from being a philosopher to a union organizer would also not have been possible without Matt’s encouragement and willingness to make countless small sacrifices for us, like cooking dinner vi while I stayed on campus late at organizing meetings and many more things. Matt, your brilliance as a philosopher and integrity as a human being are unparalleled. I’m so lucky that you are my partner. vii Table of Contents Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1: A Political Approach: What and Why .................................................................................... 5 I. Moral status: What is it? Why should we care? ........................................................................................ 6 II. The political and the moral ........................................................................................................................... 16 III. The need for a political approach to moral status .................................................................................... 24 Chapter 2: Secure Rights and the Moral Community ........................................................................... 30 I. Political entitlements: Secure and provisional rights ............................................................................. 30 II. Political duties .................................................................................................................................................. 43 III. Secure rights versus successful enforcement of negative rights .......................................................... 48 IV. The moral community ..................................................................................................................................... 50 V. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................................... 59 Chapter 3: Baseline Moral Status and Elevated Political Status ........................................................ 61 I. Distinguishing baseline moral status and elevated political status ..................................................... 61 II. Perceptual agency is plausibly sufficient for baseline moral status ..................................................... 74 III. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................................... 83 Chapter 4: Relational Approaches to Elevated Political Status .......................................................... 85 I. Why relations? ................................................................................................................................................. 86 II. Assistance relationalism ................................................................................................................................. 88 III. Hooley’s social membership view ................................................................................................................ 94 IV. Valentini’s associative view ......................................................................................................................... 101 V. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................... 105 Chapter 5: The Capacity to Cooperate ................................................................................................... 107 I. Activity (X): Type 1 or Type 2 cooperation ............................................................................................ 107 II. Conditions (Y): Within the existing approximation of the moral community ............................... 121 III. Properties (Z): Propositional Agency or Perceptual Agency+ and the ability to comply with expectations of social membership ...................................................................................................................... 132 IV. Moral relevance .............................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Why Fish Do Not Feel Pain
    Key, Brian (2016) Why fish do not eelf pain. Animal Sentience 3(1) DOI: 10.51291/2377-7478.1011 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]. 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 Why fish do not feel pain Brian Key Biomedical Sciences University of Queensland Australia Abstract: Only humans can report feeling pain. In contrast, pain in animals is typically inferred on the basis of nonverbal behaviour. Unfortunately, these behavioural data can be problematic when the reliability and validity of the behavioural tests are questionable. The thesis proposed here is based on the bioengineering principle that structure determines function. Basic functional homologies can be mapped to structural homologies across a broad spectrum of vertebrate species. For example, olfaction depends on olfactory glomeruli in the olfactory bulbs of the forebrain, visual orientation responses depend on the laminated optic tectum in the midbrain, and locomotion depends on pattern generators in the spinal cord throughout vertebrate phylogeny, from fish to humans. Here I delineate the region of the human brain that is directly responsible for feeling painful stimuli.
    [Show full text]
  • Theoretical Models of Consciousness: a Scoping Review
    brain sciences Review Theoretical Models of Consciousness: A Scoping Review Davide Sattin 1,2,*, Francesca Giulia Magnani 1, Laura Bartesaghi 1, Milena Caputo 1, Andrea Veronica Fittipaldo 3, Martina Cacciatore 1, Mario Picozzi 4 and Matilde Leonardi 1 1 Neurology, Public Health, Disability Unit—Scientific Department, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Neurologico Carlo Besta, 20133 Milan, Italy; [email protected] (F.G.M.); [email protected] (L.B.); [email protected] (M.C.); [email protected] (M.C.); [email protected] (M.L.) 2 Experimental Medicine and Medical Humanities-PhD Program, Biotechnology and Life Sciences Department and Center for Clinical Ethics, Insubria University, 21100 Varese, Italy 3 Oncology Department, Mario Negri Institute for Pharmacological Research IRCCS, 20156 Milan, Italy; veronicaandrea.fi[email protected] 4 Center for Clinical Ethics, Biotechnology and Life Sciences Department, Insubria University, 21100 Varese, Italy; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +39-02-2394-2709 Abstract: The amount of knowledge on human consciousness has created a multitude of viewpoints and it is difficult to compare and synthesize all the recent scientific perspectives. Indeed, there are many definitions of consciousness and multiple approaches to study the neural correlates of consciousness (NCC). Therefore, the main aim of this article is to collect data on the various theories of consciousness published between 2007–2017 and to synthesize them to provide a general overview of this topic. To describe each theory, we developed a thematic grid called the dimensional model, which qualitatively and quantitatively analyzes how each article, related to one specific theory, debates/analyzes a specific issue.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Evolutionary Approach to Pain Perception in Fishes
    Brown, Culum (2016) Comparative evolutionary approach to pain perception in fishes. Animal Sentience 3(5) DOI: 10.51291/2377-7478.1029 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 2016.011: Brown Commentary on Key on Fish Pain Comparative evolutionary approach to pain perception in fishes Commentary on Key on Fish Pain Culum Brown Biological Sciences Macquarie University Abstract: Arguments against the fact that fish feel pain repeatedly appear even in the face of growing evidence that they do. The standards used to judge pain perception keep moving as the hurdles are repeatedly cleared by novel research findings. There is undoubtedly a vested commercial interest in proving that fish do not feel pain, so the topic has a half-life well past its due date. Key (2016) reiterates previous perspectives on this topic characterised by a black-or-white view that is based on the proposed role of the human cortex in pain perception. I argue that this is incongruent with our understanding of evolutionary processes. Keywords: pain, fishes, behaviour, physiology, nociception Culum Brown [email protected] studies the behavioural ecology of fishes with a special interest in learning and memory. He is Associate Professor of vertebrate evolution at Macquarie University, Co-Editor of the volume Fish Cognition and Behavior, and Editor for Animal Behaviour of the Journal of Fish Biology.
    [Show full text]
  • Biocentrism in Environmental Ethics: Questions of Inherent Worth, Etiology, and Teleofunctional Interests David Lewis Rice III University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
    University of Arkansas, Fayetteville ScholarWorks@UARK Theses and Dissertations 8-2016 Biocentrism in Environmental Ethics: Questions of Inherent Worth, Etiology, and Teleofunctional Interests David Lewis Rice III University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd Part of the Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Rice, David Lewis III, "Biocentrism in Environmental Ethics: Questions of Inherent Worth, Etiology, and Teleofunctional Interests" (2016). Theses and Dissertations. 1650. http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/1650 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Biocentrism in Environmental Ethics: Questions of Inherent Worth, Etiology, and Teleofunctional Interests A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy by David Rice Delta State University Bachelor of Science in Biology, 1994 Delta State University Master of Science in Natural Sciences in Biology, 1999 University of Mississippi Master of Arts in Philosophy, 2009 August 2016 University of Arkansas This dissertation is approved for recommendation to the Graduate Council. ____________________________________ Dr. Richard Lee Dissertation Director ____________________________________ ____________________________________ Dr. Warren Herold Dr. Tom Senor Committee Member Committee Member Abstract Some biocentrists argue that all living things have "inherent worth". Anything that has inherent worth has interests that provide a reason for why all moral agents should care about it in and of itself. There are, however, some difficulties for biocentric individualist arguments which claim that all living things have inherent worth.
    [Show full text]
  • How Can We Solve the Meta-Problem of Consciousness?
    How Can We Solve the Meta-Problem of Consciousness? David J. Chalmers I am grateful to the authors of the 39 commentaries on my article “The Meta-Problem of Consciousness”. I learned a great deal from reading them and from thinking about how to reply.1 The commentaries divide fairly nearly into about three groups. About half of them discuss po- tential solutions to the meta-problem. About a quarter of them discuss the question of whether in- tuitions about consciousness are universal, widespred, or culturally local. About a quarter discuss illusionism about consciousness and especially debunking arguments that move from a solution to the meta-problem to illusionism. Some commentaries fit into more than one group and some do not fit perfectly into any, but with some stretching this provides a natural way to divide them. As a result, I have divided my reply into three parts, each of which can stand alone. This first part is “How can We Solve the Meta-Problem of Conscousness?”. The other two parts are “Is the Hard Problem of Consciousness Universal?” and “Debunking Arguments for Illusionism about Consciousness”. How can we solve the meta-problem? As a reminder, the meta-problem is the problem of explaining our problem intuitions about consciousness, including the intuition that consciousness poses a hard problem and related explanatory and metaphysical intuitions, among others. One constraint is to explain the intuitions in topic-neutral terms (for example, physical, computational, structural, or evolutionary term) that do not make explicit appeal to consciousness in the explana- tion. In the target article, I canvassed about 15 potential solutions to the meta-problem.
    [Show full text]
  • An Assessment of Recent Trade Law Developments from an Animal Law Perspective: Trade Law As the Sheep in Wolf's Clothing?
    AN ASSESSMENT OF RECENT TRADE LAW DEVELOPMENTS FROM AN ANIMAL LAW PERSPECTIVE: TRADE LAW AS THE SHEEP IN WOLF’S CLOTHING? By Charlotte Blattner* Further development within the field of animal law seems to be at an impasse, lost among the potential paths presented by its traditional influ- ences: international treaty law, domestic animal welfare regulations, and trade law. First, classical elements of global animal treaty law are limited to preservationist aspirations, insusceptible to the questions of how animals are treated or how they cope with their environment. Second, animal welfare regulation is understood as a matter confined to national territories. In cross-border dialogue, animal matters have been reduced to allegations of imperialism, which is not conducive to furthering animal interests. Third, animals are regarded as commodities in international trade law, rendering their regulation an undesirable barrier to trade. These present deficiencies deprive global animal law of its significance as a dynamic instrument re- sponsive to global challenges, be they ethical, environmental, economic, technological, or social in nature. The objective of this paper is to demonstrate future ways out of this impasse. Recent developments in trade law, as demonstrated by four exam- ples found within the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) ‘case law,’ mark an important development for animal law. State objectives expressed through trade law are slowly moving away from anthropocentric considera- tions (i.e., geared to preserve a fraction of animals for human interests) to- wards sentiocentric animal welfare (i.e., aimed at minimizing animal suffering and focusing on animal interests). Thereby, the quality of animal law that developed on the international scene through trade law exceeded the status quo of global animal treaty law.
    [Show full text]
  • Metaphilosophy of Consciousness Studies
    Part Three Metaphilosophy of Consciousness Studies Bloomsbury companion to the philosophy of consciousness.indb 185 24-08-2017 15:48:52 Bloomsbury companion to the philosophy of consciousness.indb 186 24-08-2017 15:48:52 11 Understanding Consciousness by Building It Michael Graziano and Taylor W. Webb 1 Introduction In this chapter we consider how to build a machine that has subjective awareness. The design is based on the recently proposed attention schema theory (Graziano 2013, 2014; Graziano and Kastner 2011; Graziano and Webb 2014; Kelly et al. 2014; Webb and Graziano 2015; Webb, Kean and Graziano 2016). This hypothetical building project serves as a way to introduce the theory in a step-by-step manner and contrast it with other brain-based theories of consciousness. At the same time, this chapter is more than a thought experiment. We suggest that the machine could actually be built and we encourage artificial intelligence experts to try. Figure 11.1 frames the challenge. The machine has eyes that take in visual input (an apple in this example) and pass information to a computer brain. Our task is to build the machine such that it has a subjective visual awareness of the apple in the same sense that humans describe subjective visual awareness. Exactly what is meant by subjective awareness is not a priori clear. Most people have an intuitive notion that is probably not easily put into words. One goal of this building project is to see if a clearer definition of subjective awareness emerges from the constrained process of trying to build it.
    [Show full text]
  • “But It's Just a Fish”: Understanding the Challenges of Applying the 3Rs
    animals Article “But It’s Just a Fish”: Understanding the Challenges of Applying the 3Rs in Laboratory Aquariums in the UK Reuben Message * and Beth Greenhough School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 2JD, UK; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 29 October 2019; Accepted: 28 November 2019; Published: 3 December 2019 Simple Summary: Fish are widely used in research and some species have become important model organisms in the biosciences. Despite their importance, their welfare has usually been less of a focus of public interest or regulatory attention than the welfare of more familiar terrestrial and mammalian laboratory animals; indeed, the use of fish in experiments has often been viewed as ethically preferable or even neutral. Adopting a social science perspective and qualitative methodology to address stakeholder understandings of the problem of laboratory fish welfare, this paper examines the underlying social factors and drivers that influence thinking, priorities and implementation of fish welfare initiatives and the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction and Refinement) for fish. Illustrating the case with original stakeholder interviews and experience of participant observation in zebrafish facilities, this paper explores some key social factors influencing the take up of the 3Rs in this context. Our findings suggest the relevance of factors including ambient cultural perceptions of fish, disagreements about the evidence on fish pain and suffering, the language of regulators, and the experiences of scientists and technologists who develop and put the 3Rs into practice. The discussion is focused on the UK context, although the main themes will be pertinent around the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Law & Policy Program
    HARVARD ANIMAL LAW & POLICY PROGRAM HARVARD LAW SCHOOL Annual Report Fiscal Year 2017 July 1, 2016 – June 30, 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 Part One: Report of Activities 2 A. Summary of the Academic Year 2016–2017 2 1. Executive Summary 2 2. Research, Scholarship, and Activities 3 a. Program Mission and Areas of Inquiry 3 b. Research, Scholarship, and Project Activities 3 i. Professor Kristen Stilt 3 ii. Academic Fellow, Delcianna Winders 4 iii. Policy Fellow, Alice DiConcetto 5 iv. Farmed Animal Law & Policy Fellow, Peter Brandt 5 v. Graduate Scholar, Jessica Eisen 6 c. Conferences 7 i. The Animal Welfare Act at Fifty Conference 7 ii. The Ivy League Vegan Conference at Harvard University 8 d. Academic Workshops 9 i. The Animal Welfare Act at Fifty Workshop 9 ii. Animal Agriculture from the Middle East to Asia Workshop 9 e. Other Events 11 3. Contributions to HLS Teaching Program 12 4. Participation of HLS Students in Program Activities 14 a. ALPP Student Travel Grants 14 b. Mentoring and Guidance 14 c. ALPP Student Writing Prize 16 5. Faculty Participation 17 6. Other Contributions to the HLS Community 17 a. Faculty Director, Kristen Stilt 18 b. Executive Director, Chris Green 18 7. Law Reform and Advocacy 19 a. Faculty Director, Kristen Stilt 19 b. Executive Director, Chris Green 21 c. Academic Fellow, Delcianna Winders 23 8. Connections to the Profession & Public Outreach 25 a. Faculty Director, Kristen Stilt 26 b. Executive Director, Chris Green 27 9. Collaboration with Other Schools and Departments at HLS & Harvard University 30 a.
    [Show full text]
  • An Affective Computational Model for Machine Consciousness
    An affective computational model for machine consciousness Rohitash Chandra Artificial Intelligence and Cybernetics Research Group, Software Foundation, Nausori, Fiji Abstract In the past, several models of consciousness have become popular and have led to the development of models for machine con- sciousness with varying degrees of success and challenges for simulation and implementations. Moreover, affective computing attributes that involve emotions, behavior and personality have not been the focus of models of consciousness as they lacked moti- vation for deployment in software applications and robots. The affective attributes are important factors for the future of machine consciousness with the rise of technologies that can assist humans. Personality and affection hence can give an additional flavor for the computational model of consciousness in humanoid robotics. Recent advances in areas of machine learning with a focus on deep learning can further help in developing aspects of machine consciousness in areas that can better replicate human sensory per- ceptions such as speech recognition and vision. With such advancements, one encounters further challenges in developing models that can synchronize different aspects of affective computing. In this paper, we review some existing models of consciousnesses and present an affective computational model that would enable the human touch and feel for robotic systems. Keywords: Machine consciousness, cognitive systems, affective computing, consciousness, machine learning 1. Introduction that is not merely for survival. They feature social attributes such as empathy which is similar to humans [12, 13]. High The definition of consciousness has been a major challenge level of curiosity and creativity are major attributes of con- for simulating or modelling human consciousness [1,2].
    [Show full text]
  • Do Animals Suffer Like Us
    Animal suffering, the hard problem of consciousness, and a reflection on why we should treat animals well M. Srokosz & S. Kolstoe Abstract Considerable effort and ingenuity is expended on developing theodicies in response to the problem caused by evolution in terms of pain and suffering in creation and the fact that God is good and His creation is good. From a physiological and neurological perspective, it is clear that many creatures experience pain. However, pain is an essential part of the evolutionary process being clearly adaptive, potentially preventing a worse outcome for a creature, namely death. A more difficult question is that of suffering. It will be shown that the question of animal suffering is identical to the issue of sentience and the “hard problem” of consciousness. After reviewing the evidence for animal consciousness and then suffering, we conclude with a brief reflection on why Christians should treat animals well. Keywords: animal, pain, suffering, consciousness, welfare Introduction It is notable that Darwin seemed to have no doubts that animals1 could suffer: “…the lower animals, like man, manifestly feel pleasure and pain, happiness and misery.” and “The fact that the lower animals are excited by the same emotions as ourselves is so well established that it will not be necessary to weary the reader by many details.” 2 1 Here and subsequently animal refers to non-human animal. 2 1871, The descent of man and selection in relation to sex – quoted in M.S. Dawkins, “Through animal eyes: what behaviour tells us,” Applied Animal Behaviour Science 100 (2006): 4-10. Her book M.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Broom Fish Brains Pain
    Pre-publication copy Broom, D.M. 2016. Fish brains and behaviour indicate capacity for feeling pain. Animal Sentience, 2016.010 (5 pages). Fish brains, as well as fish behaviour, indicate capacity for awareness and feeling pain Donald M. Broom Centre for Anthrozoology and Animal Welfare Department of Veterinary Medicine University of Cambridge Madingley Road Cambridge CB3 0ES U.K. [email protected] http://www.neuroscience.cam.ac.uk/directory/profile.php?dmb16 Keywords pain sentience welfare fish feelings emotions brain behaviour Abstract Studies of behaviour are of major importance in understanding human pain and pain in other animals such as fish. Almost all of the characteristics of the mammalian pain system are also described for fish. Emotions, feelings and learning from these are controlled in the fish brain in areas anatomically different but functionally very similar to those in mammals. The evidence of pain and fear system function in fish is so similar to that in humans and other mammals that it is logical to conclude that fish feel fear and pain. Fish are sentient beings. Key (2015) is scornful about evidence from studies of fish behaviour indicating that fish are aware and feel pain but presents a thorough explanation of the pain system in the human brain and concludes that fish could not feel pain, or have any other feelings, as they do not have the brain structures that allow pain and other feelings in humans. Section 2 of his paper emphasises “the cortical origins of human pain” and states that “structure determines function”, eXplaining the functions of the five layers of the human cortex.
    [Show full text]