DOCSLIB.ORG

Vassar-College-Journal-Of-Philosophy-2.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Vassar-College-Journal-Of-Philosophy-2.Pdf THE VASSAR COLLEGE JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY EDITORS-IN-CHIEF Derek Butterton • Clement Stormes EDITORIAL BOARD Samuel Allen Louis Cheng Spencer Davis Sophie Koeller Henry Krusoe Erin Leahy Thomas Wolfe FACULTY ADVISOR Giovanna Borradori Authorization is granted to photocopy for personal or internal use or for free distribution. Inquiries regarding reproduction and subscription should be addressed to The Vassar College Journal of Philosophy at [email protected]. THE VASSAR COLLEGE JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY Issue 2 Spring 2015 CONTENTS Acknowledgments iv Introduction 1 Rationality Revisited: A Critique of Kymlicka and Donaldson’s Animal Legal Subjectivity Nikolaas Deketelaere Catholic University of Leuven 3 Do Androids Deem Us Electric Sheep? Jorin Lee University of Houston 19 Double Mourning: Civility, Man and Animal Louis Cheng Vassar College 29 A Review of Brian Christian, The Most Human Human: What Artificial Intelligence Teaches Us about Being Alive Sophie Koeller Vassar College 41 A Review of Michael Marder, The Philosopher’s Plant: An Intellectual Herbarium Samuel Allen Vassar College 45 The Flesh of the Visual: An Interview with Mauro Carbone Sophie Koeller & Louis Cheng Vassar College 49 Call for Papers 67 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Vassar College Journal of Philosophy owes its success to a number of exceptional individuals and organizations. The Journal would not be possible without the support of the Vassar College Department of Philosophy, in particular Chair and Faculty Advisor Giovanna Borradori and Administrative Assistant Elizabeth Kucharek. The Journal is also grateful to the Vassar Student Association for its generous financial contribution; to Professor Mauro Carbone for his insightful interview; and to Tilhenn Klapper for her elegant cover design. Finally, the Journal offers a special thanks to the undergraduates who submitted their thoughtful essays on the topic of nonhumans. 1 INTRODUCTION The Vassar College Journal of Philosophy aims to provide a platform for undergraduate thought and engagement with compelling themes of philosophical interest. It annually invites essay submissions from undergraduates around the world, and it strives to include voices from diverse philosophical disciplines. Now in its second year, the Journal has substantially increased both the number and geographical spread of its submissions, receiving papers from undergraduates on four different continents. This year’s theme, “Nonhumans,” engages with exciting recent work in a variety of philosophical traditions. The notion of “nonhumans” sits at the intersection of debates in ethics, the philosophy of mind, and social and political philosophy in both the Analytic and Continental approaches. The three essays in this issue represent this diversity of thought, as well as high-quality philosophical argumentation. The Editors hope that the Journal will provoke thought, discussion, and further exploration of the questions raised by the essays, book reviews, and interview. 2 3 RATIONALITY REVISITED: A CRITIQUE OF KYMLICKA AND DONALDSON’S ANIMAL LEGAL SUBJECTIVITY Nikolaas Deketelaere Catholic University of Leuven Abstract This essay argues that Kymlicka and Donaldson’s critique of the traditional conception of legal subjectivity as grounded in reason is unsound. They argue that this traditional conception is inadequate because it does not cover the entire range of human diversity. An adequate conception of legal subjectivity would then also allow for it to be attributed to domesticated animals. However, as I demonstrate, the traditional conception does cover the entire range of human diversity, as it is not grounded in the factual exercise of reason but the essential capacity to reflect reasonably. Introduction In their 2011 book Zoopolis Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka present their political theory of animal rights. In a recent essay, “Animals and the Frontiers of Citizenship,” the authors respond to the main criticisms of that theory.1 They argue that when we think about animal protection, we do so from a presupposed relationship between humans and animals: for example, how we can improve animal welfare within the meat industry. When animals take part in our society, however, the authors say we should recognise them as members of that society and think about how we can enter into a relationship with animals that is mutually beneficial. They believe achieving this new relationship is possible by granting domesticated animals citizenship, including the corresponding civil rights that citizenship entails. Their main argument supporting this thesis is that domesticated animals are fully dependent on humans 1 Sue Donaldson & Will Kymlicka, Zoopolis: A Political Theory of Animal Rights (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2011); Sue Donaldson & Will Kymlicka, “Animals and the Frontiers of Citizenship”, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 34 (2014): 201-219. 4 in their everyday life, and therefore share a society with them. On these grounds they deserve to be fully recognised as integral members of that society, and consequently they deserve civil rights: “Through domestication, humans have brought [domesticated animals] into our society and incorporated them into our schemes of social co-operation, and so we owe them rights of membership, which we can illuminate through theories of citizenship.”2 However noble I think the authors’ project is, here I criticise one of their presuppositions: that animals are subjects of law, or the mere idea that it is possible for them to possess rights, since, as the authors indicate, citizenship is a collection of civil rights. I first explain what legal subjectivity is and how Kymlicka and Donalsdon argue implicitly that domesticated animals are subjects of law. Subsequently, I demonstrate how a recent ruling of a New York court denies this.3 Finally, I present a possible argument the authors might bring against this ruling and explain why this argument is conceptually problematic. 1. Kymlicka and Donaldson’s Animal Legal Subjectivity 1.1. Objects and Subjects of Law We should distinguish objects and subjects of law. Subjects of law possess legal subjectivity, in order words, they can be the bearers of rights and duties. They can enforce their rights through a judicial body, and that same body can sanction the legal subject when its behaviour is not in accordance with its duties. Objects of law, on the other hand, do not possess legal subjectivity but are the objects of legal applications. One can for example exercise property rights over the legal object that is the house. Traditionally, animals are considered to be objects of law: they cannot possess any rights or duties. One could think of this doctrine as the legal articulation of Descartes’ philosophy, in which 2 Donaldson and Kymlicka, Animals and the Frontiers of Citizenship, 208. 3 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. NONHUMAN RIGHTS INC. v. PATRICK C. LEVERY [State of New York, Supreme Court, Appellate Division (Third Judicial Department): 04/12/2014 (case nr. 518336)]. 5 the animal belongs completely to the res extensa as a soulless automaton.4 Animals therefore cannot be considered citizens because they lack the capacity to be the bearers of civil rights.5 Since they are legal objects, their legal protection takes the form of prohibiting certain actions from humans, as subjects of law, and not that of attributing rights to animals that they can enforce autonomously. Humans have, for example, a legal duty not to torture animals, but animals do not, unlike humans, have a right not to be tortured which other legal subjects have a duty to respect. Kymlicka and Donaldson’s objection against this kind of protection is that it presupposes a certain functional relationship between humans and animals. They argue for the recognition of animals as autonomous members of society, as citizens, and thus, implicitly, as subjects of law as they would possess certain rights and duties. 1.2. The Domesticated Animal’s Rights Kymlicka and Donaldson observe that we have extracted animals from the wild and domesticated them to serve as pets. Because of this extraction they have become completely dependent on humans in their everyday lives. Moreover, humans control animals’ entire lives, but do not take their interests into account when it comes to the organisation of society. The authors compare this hierarchical relationship with the relationship between masters and their slaves. Animals are, just like slaves, a dominated caste that nonetheless is part of society. Such a caste, whether composed of slaves or animals, ought to be recognised as a part of that society out of motives of justice. The hierarchical relationship ought to be replaced by one of equality. This is made possible by granting animals or slaves citizenship, including the corresponding civil rights. 4 Rita Gielen, Dier en recht: Mensenrechten ook voor dieren? (Antwerpen: Maklu, 2000), 22. 5 Pamela D. Frash, Katherine M. Hessler, Sarah M. Kutil & Sonia S. Waisman, Animal Law in a Nutshell (St. Paul: West, 2011), 228-229. 6 According to the authors, however, this reasoning only applies to domesticated animals since it is only domesticated animals that are members of our society, that take part in a cooperative structure together with and alongside humans. They give the example of the oxen Bill and Lou: Bill and Lou contributed labour to a sustainable farming project of a local college. They thus depended for their basic needs on the college, but also contributed to one of its projects. Because they take part in this cooperative structure they do not, according to the authors, deserve protection against certain actions from humans, but civil rights that can be enforced autonomously. 1.3. The Domesticated Animal’s Duties As previously mentioned, being a subject of law means not merely being the bearer of rights, but also of duties. The capability of domesticated animals to be the bearers of rights is deduced by the authors from moral intuitions: based on the cooperative structure in which both animals and humans take part, humans ought to recognise certain rights of animals. The animal on its part is obliged to comply with certain duties.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Anniversary Book
    THE ANNIVERSARY BOOK 50 YEARS OF LEADERSHIP: CONTINUING THE VISION CELEBRATING 50 YEARS OF THE COMMUNICATING NURSING RESEARCH CONFERENCE and 60TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE WESTERN COUNCIL ON HIGHER EDUCATION FOR NURSING (WCHEN) / THE WESTERN INSTITUTE OF NURSING (WIN) The Western Institute of Nursing is indebted to Elaine S. Marshall, PhD, RN, FAAN, who, with colleagues, created the 50th Communicating Nursing Research Conference anniversary book. The history of this trailblazing conference cannot be told without the story of the 60th anniversary of the Western Council on Higher Education for Nursing (WCHEN) / Western Institute of Nursing (WIN), which originated and continues to offer this landmark conference. WCHEN/WIN was founded on this principle: nursing research, education and the improvement of patient care highly interrelated. This principle endures today and into the future. Finally, the Anniversary Book tells the story of the strong leaders who originated the organization and conference. We stand on the shoulders of these Western giants. WESTERN INSTITUTE OF NURSING SN-4S 3455 SW US VETERANS HOSPITAL ROAD PORTLAND, OR 97239-2941 An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer Spring 2017 table OF CONTENTS preface . 5 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . 7 CHAPTER ONE . 9 THE WORK BEGINS: 1951-1968 CHAPTER TWO . 33 LAUNCHING COMMUNICATING NURSING RESEARCH, 1968-1973 CHAPTER THREE . 53 Communicating Nursing Research, 1974-1985: “Experimentation AND CHANGE” AND “CHANGING OF THE GUARD” CHAPTER FOUR . 77 Communicating Nursing Research, 1986-1999: “BROADENED HORIZONS,” “SILVER THREADS,” AND THE SCIENCE GROWS CHAPTER FIVE . 97 Communicating Nursing Research, 2000-2017: National AND International LEGACY AND INFLUENCE CHAPTER SIX . 123 Communicating Nursing Research: 50 YEARS AND BEYOND 60-YEAR TIMELINE OF THE WESTERN INSTITUTE OF NURSING (WIN) .
    [Show full text]
  • 1:39.96 Wellesley College-MA 1 NT Wellesley College-MA 2 NT
    Smith College HY-TEK's MEET MANAGER 6.0 - 4:39 PM 1/18/2019 Page 1 2019 Seven Sisters - 1/19/2019 to 1/20/2019 Psych Sheet Event 1 Women 200 Yard Freestyle Relay Records: 1:40.53 2015 Amour, O'Hara, Johnson, Johnso Wellesley Team Relay Seed Time Finals Place 1 Wellesley College-MA A 1:39.96 ________________________ 2 Wellesley College-MA B NT ________________________ 3 Wellesley College-MA C NT ________________________ 4 Wellesley College-MA D NT ________________________ 5 Vassar College-MR A NT ________________________ 6 Vassar College-MR B NT ________________________ 7 Vassar College-MR C NT ________________________ Event 2 Women 500 Yard Freestyle Records: 5:05.98 2014 C. Pruden Mount Holyoke Name Age School Seed Time Finals Place 1 Ecklund, Jesse 18 Vassar College-MR 5:08.56 ________________________ 2 Ripp, Shelby I 18 Wellesley College-MA 5:13.41 ________________________ 3 Healey, Angharad G 20 Vassar College-MR 5:17.40 ________________________ 4 Hayes, Kendall 19 Vassar College-MR 5:24.46 ________________________ 5 Schneider, Maya 19 Bryn Mawr College-MA 5:26.50 ________________________ 6 Ragnini, Kael H 22 Vassar College-MR 5:28.93 ________________________ 7 Feng, Jessie Y 21 Wellesley College-MA 5:29.78 ________________________ 8 May, Hannah E 20 Wellesley College-MA 5:30.66 ________________________ 9 Gonzalez, Paulina E 18 Wellesley College-MA 5:31.40 ________________________ 10 Bliss, Ashton L 19 Mount Holyoke College-NE 5:37.82 ________________________ 11 Crandall, Charlotte B 19 Smith College-NE 5:40.48 ________________________
    [Show full text]
  • Below Is a Sampling of the Nearly 500 Colleges, Universities, and Service Academies to Which Our Students Have Been Accepted Over the Past Four Years
    Below is a sampling of the nearly 500 colleges, universities, and service academies to which our students have been accepted over the past four years. Allegheny College Connecticut College King’s College London American University Cornell University Lafayette College American University of Paris Dartmouth College Lehigh University Amherst College Davidson College Loyola Marymount University Arizona State University Denison University Loyola University Maryland Auburn University DePaul University Macalester College Babson College Dickinson College Marist College Bard College Drew University Marquette University Barnard College Drexel University Maryland Institute College of Art Bates College Duke University McDaniel College Baylor University Eckerd College McGill University Bentley University Elon University Miami University, Oxford Binghamton University Emerson College Michigan State University Boston College Emory University Middlebury College Boston University Fairfield University Morehouse College Bowdoin College Florida State University Mount Holyoke College Brandeis University Fordham University Mount St. Mary’s University Brown University Franklin & Marshall College Muhlenberg College Bucknell University Furman University New School, The California Institute of Technology George Mason University New York University California Polytechnic State University George Washington University North Carolina State University Carleton College Georgetown University Northeastern University Carnegie Mellon University Georgia Institute of Technology
    [Show full text]
  • Animals and the Frontiers of Citizenship
    Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 34, No. 2 (2014), pp. 201–219 doi:10.1093/ojls/gqu001 Published Advance Access February 5, 2014 Animals and the Frontiers of Citizenship Will Kymlicka* and Sue Donaldson** Abstract —Citizenship has been at the core of struggles by historically excluded Downloaded from groups for respect and inclusion. Can citizenship be extended even further to domesticated animals? We begin this article by sketching an argument for why justice requires the extension of citizenship to domesticated animals, above and beyond compassionate care, stewardship or universal basic rights. We then consider two objections to this argument. Some animal rights theorists worry that extending citizenship to domesticated animals, while it may sound progressive, would in fact http://ojls.oxfordjournals.org/ be bad for animals, providing yet another basis for policing their behaviour to fit human needs and interests. Critics of animal rights, on the other hand, worry that the inclusion of ‘unruly’ beasts would be bad for democracy, eroding its core values and principles. We attempt to show that both objections are misplaced, and that animal citizenship would both promote justice for animals and deepen fundamental democratic dispositions and values. Keywords: citizenship, animal rights, justice, co-operation at Queen's University on June 23, 2014 1. Introduction In our recent book Zoopolis, we made the case for a distinctly ‘political theory of animal rights’.1 In this Lecture, we attempt to extend that argument, and to respond to some critics of it, by focusing specifically on the novel idea of ‘animal citizenship’. To begin, let us briefly situate our approach in the larger animal rights debate.
    [Show full text]
  • Seven Sisters
    SEVEN SISTERS 2012 SQUASH CHAMPIONSHIP From the Director of Athletics and Physical Education Welcome to the 2012 Seven Sisters Squash Championship!! Vassar College and the Department of Athletics & Physical Education, are very honored to be hosting the 2012 Seven Sisters Squash Championship! It is a particular distinction to be hosting this prestigious event on the eve of celebrating the 40th Anniversary of the enactment of Title IX. Recognizing the values of competition and sport has long been an integral part of the Seven Sisters relationship and honors the athletic capabilities and attributes of women. Enjoy your time at Vassar! We hope you have a chance to walk our beautiful campus, visit our local restaurants such as Baccio’s, Baby Cakes and the Beech Tree. Have a safe trip back home. Best Wishes, Sharon R. Beverly, Ph.D. Director of Athletics & Physical Education 2012 SEVEN SISTERS SQUASH CHAMPIONSHIPS SEVEN SISTERS CHAMPIONSHIP SCHEDULE --FEBRUARY 4, 2012 - KENYON HALL-- 10:30 AM VASSAR COLLEGE [24] VS. SMITH COLLEGE [25] 12:00 PM WELLESLEY COLLEGE [26] VS. MOUNT HOLYOKE COLLEGE [13] 1:30 PM COURTS 1,3,5 VASSAR COLLEGE [24] VS. WELLESLEY COLLEGE [26] COURTS 2,4,6 SMITH COLLEGE [25] VS. MOUNT HOLYOKE COLLEGE [13] 4:00 PM COURTS 1,3,5 VASSAR COLLEGE [24] VS. MOUNT HOLYOKE COLLEGE [13] COURTS 2,4,6 SMITH COLLEGE [25] VS. WELLESLEY COLLEGE [26] [College Squash Association Rankings as of 1/22/12] Scan for results and tournament page. VASSAR COLLEGE BREWers QUICK FACTS LOCATION: Poughkeepsie, NY FOUNDED: 1861 ENROLLMENT: 2,400 NICKNAME: Brewers COLORS: Burgundy and Gray AFFILIATION: NCAA Division III CONFERENCE: Liberty League PRESIDENT: Catharine Bond Hill DIRECTOR OF ATHLETICS & PHYSICAL EDUCATION: Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Maria Mitchell's Legacy to Vassar College: Then And
    Library and Information Services in Astronomy IV July 2-5, 2002, Prague, Czech Republic B. Corbin, E. Bryson, and M. Wolf (eds) Maria Mitchell's Legacy to Vassar College: Then and Now Flora Grabowska Vassar College Libraries, Poughkeepsie, NY 12604, USA fl[email protected] Abstract. Maria Mitchell became Vassar's first Astronomy Professor and Observatory Director in 1865. Her teaching emphasis on students learning by direct observation and analysis is continued today at Vassar College. Several of her students went on to prominence in astronomy, two of them succeeding her at Vassar. Astronomy majors today, both male and female, consistently achieve success after Vassar, in astronomy as well as in other fields. She encouraged her students to present their findings at scientific meetings and in scientific journals, also encouraged today as undergraduates co-author research papers with faculty members. She insisted on excellent facilities and built up the library collection, maintained today to a standard remarkable for a college of just under 2,500 undergraduate students. 1. Great Beginnings Matthew Vassar was keen to have female teachers at Vassar College (Haight 1916). Maria Mitchell had achieved world fame with her 1847 telescopic discov- ery of a comet and was an excellent choice, becoming Vassar's first astronomy professor in 1865. In a eulogy at her funeral in 1889, Vassar College President Taylor concluded, \She has been an impressive figure in our time, and one whose influence lives." (Taylor 1889) Henry Albers, Vassar's fifth Observatory director (the first male!), referring to our fine facilities today, wrote, \In keeping with the legacy of Maria Mitchell, these facilities enable today's students to learn and apply the most modern astronomical techniques." (Albers 2001, 329) This presentation aims to confirm that the legacy has been self-perpetuating and lives on.
    [Show full text]
  • Connexion: a Note on Praxis for Animal Advocates
    Dalhousie Law Journal Volume 40 Issue 2 Article 5 10-1-2017 Connexion: A Note on Praxis for Animal Advocates John Enman-Beech Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.schulichlaw.dal.ca/dlj Part of the Animal Law Commons Recommended Citation John Enman-Beech, "Connexion: A Note on Praxis for Animal Advocates" (2017) 40:2 Dal LJ 545. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Schulich Law Scholars. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dalhousie Law Journal by an authorized editor of Schulich Law Scholars. For more information, please contact [email protected]. John Enman-Beech* Connexion: A Note on Praxis for Animal Advocates Effective animal advocacy requires human-animal connexion. I apply a relational approach to unfold this insight into a praxis for animal advocates. Connexion grounds the affective relationships that so often motivate animal advocates. More importantly, it enables animal agency, the ability of animals to act and communicate in ways humans can experience and respond to. With connexion in mind, some weaknesses of previous reform efforts become apparent. I join these in the slogan "abolitionismas disconnexion." In so far as abolitionism draws humans and animals apart, it undermines the movement's social basis, limits its imaginative resources, and deprives animals of a deeper freedom. I evaluate political theories of animals and find that only some can frame a picture of humans and animals living together in connexion. I close by noting the limitations of the connexion lens-we cannot simply create connexions without also evaluating whether they are oppressive-and some practical policy measures that can be taken today to further the goods of connexion Pour 6tre efficace, /a defense des animaux exige une connexion entre /'homme et /'animal.
    [Show full text]
  • How We Tr-Eat Animals
    Umeå universitet Statsvetenskapliga institutionen HOW WE TR(EAT) ANIMALS A political analysis of the problems faced with implementing the capabilities approach Uppsats för C-seminariet i Statsvetenskap vid Umeå universitet Vårterminen 2015 Johan Westin Contents Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 3 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 4 2. Aims and purpose ................................................................................................................... 6 3. Limitations ............................................................................................................................. 6 4. Disposition ............................................................................................................................. 6 5. Theory .................................................................................................................................... 7 5.1 The capabilities approach ................................................................................................. 7 6. Method ................................................................................................................................. 11 6.1 Normative analysis ......................................................................................................... 11 6.1.1 Values and the ‘should’ questions
    [Show full text]
  • Post-Deconstructive Subjectivity and History: Phenomenology, Critical Theory, and Postcolonial Thought
    Post-deconstructive Subjectivity and History: Phenomenology, Critical Theory, and Postcolonial Thought By Aniruddha Chowdhury A Dissertation Submitted To The Faculty of Graduate Studies In Partial Satisfaction Of The Requirements For The Degree Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Program In Social and Political Thought York University, Toronto, Ontario [September 2011] Library and Archives Bibliotheque et Canada Archives Canada Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de I'edition 395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A0N4 Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Canada Canada Your file Votre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-88661-8 Our file Notre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-88661-8 NOTICE: AVIS: The author has granted a non­ L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library and permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par telecommunication ou par I'lnternet, preter, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans le loan, distrbute and sell theses monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, sur worldwide, for commercial or non­ support microforme, papier, electronique et/ou commercial purposes, in microform, autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats. The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in this et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. Ni thesis. Neither the thesis nor la these ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci substantial extracts from it may be ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement printed or otherwise reproduced reproduits sans son autorisation.
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Citizenship, Phenomenology, and Ontology: Some Reflections on Donaldson’S & Kymlicka’S Zoopolis
    Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2017; 8(1): 21-32 Original Article Animal Citizenship, Phenomenology, and Ontology: Some reflections on Donaldson’s & Kymlicka’s Zoopolis Iván Ortega Rodríguez Universidad Pontificia Comillas, Madrid, Spain Email: [email protected], [email protected] Abstract: This paper is a dialogue with Sue Donaldson’s and Will Kymlicka’s book Zoopolis: A Political Theory of Animal Rights. My thesis is that, despite the authors’ reticence, considerations in first philosophy regarding humans and nonhumans are relevant to their goal of building a more comprehensive animal rights philosophy. What is more, I believe that first philosophy actually can be of help for their proposal, specifically in the form of phenomenology and phenomenological ontology. For this purpose, I first summarize the basic outline of Zoopolis’s position and indicate some questions that arise from a strictly internal consideration of its theses. And secondly, I introduce some aspects in which phenomenological research would be relevant, along with some particular and provisional analyses carried out from the standpoint of a phenomenologically-based ontology. Especially, there is a theme that stands out: the intersubjective realms between humans and nonhumans. Key Words: Animal Rights, Animal Philosophy, Phenomenology, ontology Bioethics, Ecology. Introduction: Animal philosophy received a decisive impulse with Sue Donaldson’s and Will Kymlicka’s book Zoopolis: A Political Theory of Animal Rights 1 . It offered a comprehensive theory that, to a great extent, creates a new theoretical framework for thinking the moral status of nonhuman animals. In fact, it is not an understatement to say that Zoopolis is already a reference so unavoidable as Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation.
    [Show full text]
  • CRITICAL TERMS for ANIMAL STUDIES
    CRITICAL TERMS for ANIMAL STUDIES Edited by LORI GRUEN THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS Chicago and London Contents Introduction • Lori Gruen 1 1 Abolition • Claire Jean Kim 15 2 Activism • Jeff Sebo and Peter Singer 33 3 Anthropocentrism • Fiona Probyn- Rapsey 47 4 Behavior • Alexandra Horowitz 64 5 Biopolitics • Dinesh Joseph Wadiwel 79 6 Captivity • Lori Marino 99 7 Difference • Kari Weil 112 8 Emotion • Barbara J. King 125 9 Empathy • Lori Gruen 141 10 Ethics • Alice Crary 154 11 Extinction • Thom van Dooren 169 12 Kinship • Agustín Fuentes and Natalie Porter 182 13 Law • Kristen Stilt 197 14 Life • Eduardo Kohn 210 15 Matter • James K. Stanescu 222 16 Mind • Kristin Andrews 234 17 Pain • Victoria A. Braithwaite 251 18 Personhood • Colin Dayan 267 19 Postcolonial • Maneesha Deckha 280 20 Rationality • Christine M. Korsgaard 294 21 Representation • Robert R. McKay 307 22 Rights • Will Kymlicka and Sue Donaldson 320 23 Sanctuary • Timothy Pachirat 337 24 Sentience • Gary Varner 356 25 Sociality • Cynthia Willett and Malini Suchak 370 26 Species • Harriet Ritvo 383 27 Vegan • Annie Potts and Philip Armstrong 395 28 Vulnerability • Anat Pick 410 29 Welfare • Clare Palmer and Peter Sandøe 424 Acknowledgments 439 List of Contributors 441 Index 451 INTRODUCTION Lori Gruen Animal Studies is almost always described as a new, emerging, and growing field. A short while ago some Animal Studies scholars suggested that it “has a way to go before it can clearly see itself as an academic field” (Gorman 2012). Other scholars suggest that the “discipline” is a couple of decades old (DeMello 2012).
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Animal Rights, Multiculturalism and the Left Will Kymlicka and Sue
    Animal Rights, Multiculturalism and the Left1 Will Kymlicka and Sue Donaldson In shorthand summaries of the preferred causes of the progressive Left in the past 40 years, one often finds a reference to animal rights, alongside gender equality, gay rights, the disability movement, and the rights of immigrants, racial minorities and indigenous peoples. All are seen as paradigmatically progressive causes, fighting to emancipate historically subordinated and stigmatized groups, often subsumed under the label of “social justice struggles” or “citizenship struggles”. Yet the inclusion of animal rights in this list is misleading: the reality is that the animal question is virtually invisible within the Left. As Boggs notes, “Apart from its marginal leverage within the radical-ecology movement, animal rights discourse has scarcely entered into or altered the work of Left/progressive groups in the United States” (Boggs 2011: 73). Animal advocates are “orphans of the Left”,2championing a progressive cause that is shunned by other progressive movements.3 Animal rights may receive a passing ritualized mention before being promptly ignored.4 Nor is this a new phenomenon: the same pattern held for the old Left, in the 19th and early 20th centuries. As Sanbonmatsu notes, “the Left with few exceptions has historically viewed human violence towards other beings with indifference” (Sanbonmatsu 2011: 13). While this indifference is long-standing, its causes have arguably changed. Marx – who was contemptuous of animal rights movements5 – shared the Kantian/Hegelian view that the intrinsic value of humanity derives entirely from what distinguishes ‘man’ from animals, and that nature (including animals) is simply the stage on which humans enact their unique Promethean species powers for self-conscious and creative cooperative labour.
    [Show full text]