DOCSLIB.ORG

Philosophy and the Environment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Philosophy and the Environment The Philosophy NewsletterL for Studentsantern Volume 15, Number 2 Spring 2014 Philosophy and the Environment Given our increasing awareness of anthropogenic says we have to be so stupid in pursuit of our well-being.” climate change, and of the other harms our way of life On his view, anthropocentrism, properly understood, does causes to other inhabitants of Earth, and to the Earth not portend the destruction of nature, but instead implies itself, it should not surprise you to learn that many phi- that we ought to secure rather far-reaching and robust losophers have something to say about the environment. policies aimed at protecting the natural environmental. Even the very earliest philosophers were concerned Nevertheless, many environmental philosophers about the environment, asking questions about how the reject even enlightened anthropocentrism. Some non- human being might fit into the order of the cosmos in anthropocentric approaches seek to extend traditional its supernatural and natural elements. Many Modern moral boundaries to include some non-human entities. philosophers attempted to separate the natural from the For example, Peter Singer argues that morality is fun- supernatural and to provide a scientific account of nature damentally about promoting happiness and reducing and our relationship to it. Today, philosophers are show- suffering in the world. Since many animals have the ing a renewed interest in thinking about the place of the capacity to suffer, he concludes that many animals count human and non-human animal in regard to nature. too, morally speaking. Others have developed Kantian Contemporary environmental philosophy has been and Aristotelian/Virtue approaches. an academic discipline since the 1970s. It fosters discus- Some environmental philosophers offer more radical sion of the appropriate ways to understand and deal with approaches to understanding our relationship with the our relationship to the environment. Many different ap- non-human, natural world. Among the more influential proaches have been developed including environmental alternatives are ecofeminism and deep ecology. Ecofemi- ethics, environmental justice, ecofeminism, environmental nists like Karen War- aesthetics, environmental theology, and ecophenomenol- ren and Val Plum- IN THIS ISSUE ogy. Here at UWG, some of the philosophy faculty are wood argue that there engaged with these debates and have provided brief de- are deep connections scriptions here of some key areas of philosophic interest. between domination Philosopher’s Wisdom Anthropocentrism is the view that only human beings of women and domi- have moral value, and that other things, such as animals, nation of nature. They Summer 2014 plants, and ecosystems, have value only if human beings seek to expose and Course Descriptions need or want them. On this view, human beings have dismantle the value “inherent” value (we are valuable by nature and regardless dualisms—male as Fall 2014 of whether anyone needs or wants us) while other things opposed to female, Course Descriptions have mere “instrumental” value, value only as tools or as human as opposed to means for achieving some human good. Immanuel Kant nature, mind as op- held a view like this. While many environmental ethicists posed to body—that Meeting of the Minds reject anthropocentrism, and argue that some animals, have become cultur- plants, or even ecosystems have inherent value too, oth- ally institutionalized Upcoming Undergraduate ers defend “enlightened” forms of anthropocentrism. As ways of legitimizing Conferences Frederik Kaufman puts it, “nothing in anthropocentrism control of “inferior” Summer Reading Suggestions The Lantern by “superior” entities. We must free ourselves from these housing developments, and these future generations will dualistic thought patterns if we are to relate to each other adapt to what we leave them. But what kind of people do and to nature in mutually respectful rather than harmful we create when we do this? Do we owe them better than and controlling ways. this, even if we have reason to think they won’t complain Deep ecology, founded by Arne Naess, seeks to about what we leave them? overturn traditional value systems and replace them with Ecophenomenology is quite a new approach devel- biological, ecological egalitarianism. Naess’s own brand oped initially by Erazim Kohak and Neil Evernden in of deep ecology (Ecosophy T) draws inspiration from the 1980s. These two thinkers believe that a phenom- Buddhism and the ideas of Dutch philosopher Spinoza enological approach has much to offer in countering (1632-1677). Under the banner of “Self-Realization!”. the Western tendency to reduce nature to its use value. Naess urges each of us to expand our personal identities They draw upon Heidegger in suggesting that if we view until they encompass all life, ultimately breaking down nature as simply something there for us to master and the boundary between “me” and “not me.” put towards human aims, we will find ourselves alienated While many trace the roots of our environmental from nature and unable to understand ourselves as well crisis to Judeo-Christian ideals, interest in “green religion” as nature. As one contemporary ecophenomenologist, is on the rise. Figures like Wendell Berry have long ar- Ingrid Stefanovic, suggests, “One of phenomenology’s gued that the fact that God has given the natural world primary tasks is to articulate essential meanings as they to us to use for our own good does not imply that we appear to human understanding , …to discern underlying can do whatever we want with it. In “The Gift of Good patterns of meaning that may not be self-evident but that Land” he argues that it is a mistake for us to model our permeate our efforts to interpret the world in which we relationship to nature on the story of the giving of the find ourselves and to crystallize some essential truths in Garden of Eden, because we are fallen people. A better their historical and cultural rootedness.” Biblical model, he says, is the story of the giving of the Phenomenological insights can help us to make bet- Promised Land to the tribes of Israel. In his words, “such ter decisions on environmental matters. We can use such a gift can be given only as a moral predicament: having insights to improve policies and laws as well as the design failed to deserve it beforehand, they must prove worthy of the environments in which we dwell and work. Again, of it afterwards; they must use it well, or they will not Ingrid Stefanovic, claims that phenomenological perspec- continue long in it.” This kind of criticism has spurred tives may provide a middle way between anthropocentric research into what it means to be a good steward of the and ecocentric viewpoints, in which the world is perceived natural world for God. Bernard Rollin claims it is no ac- as something to be neither controlled nor revered. cident that God’s ideal relationship to us is often captured Next fall UWG will be sponsoring a sustainability in terms of good animal husbandry. We respect God and week hosting an international conference with sustain- what God has given us by responding appropriately to ability and the environment as its theme and promoting natural needs and characteristic activities of other animals activities that draw attention to ways of making our and plants. After all, on this Biblical view, animals and campus and our lives more sustainable. Environmental plants have the natures they do because God made them philosophy will certainly be a part of the discussion. Stay that way. To ignore their natures, or to use them in ways tuned here for information about the activities involved not consistent with their natures, is to ignore God’s will. and let’s get thinking about the environment! Some philosophers are interested in issues in envi- ronmental justice. For instance, the Great Ape Project is an international effort to get the United Nations to endorse a “Declaration on Great Apes.” This declaration PHILOSOPHER’S would extend basic legal rights to gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos and orangutans. Other philosophers ask whether ISDOM corrective justice requires developed nations to repay the W world community, and especially developing nations, in “The greatest intellectual capacities are compensation for the damage they caused to the natural only found in connection with a vehe- environment while they developed. Still other philoso- phers ask what we owe to future generations. We can ment and passionate will.” leave future generations a planet largely devoid of natural ~Arthur Schopenhauer spaces, one filled with parking lots, shopping malls, and 2 Spring 2014 SUMMER 2014 COURSE DESCRIPTIONS —Session III: June 2-June 24— Phil 2030-01: Introduction to Ethics MTWRF 10:00 a.m.-12:15 p.m. (Pafford 308) Dr. Rosemary Kellison This course serves as an introduction to ethics: philosophical thinking about the question of how humans ought to live. In this course we will engage with ethics on several different levels. We will think about practical moral problems, such as abortion, capital punishment, animal rights, and poverty. To enable critical examination of our own and others’ positions on such moral problems, we will explore various theoretical approaches to ethics, learning the different ways in which individuals and communities justify their moral arguments. Finally, we will consider broader, more theoretical questions regarding the nature and origin of morality itself. Required for philosophy majors. May count for credit in Core
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lay Persons and Community Values in Reviewing Animal Experimentation Jeff Leslie [email protected]
    University of Chicago Legal Forum Volume 2006 | Issue 1 Article 5 Lay Persons and Community Values in Reviewing Animal Experimentation Jeff Leslie [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf Recommended Citation Leslie, Jeff () "Lay Persons and Community Values in Reviewing Animal Experimentation," University of Chicago Legal Forum: Vol. 2006: Iss. 1, Article 5. Available at: http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol2006/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Chicago Legal Forum by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Lay Persons and Community Values in Reviewing Animal Experimentation Jeff Lesliet Is it morally acceptable to use animals in scientific experi- ments that will not benefit those animals, but instead solely benefit people? Most people would say yes; but at the same time most would view the use of animals as a regrettable necessity, to be pursued only when the benefits to people outweigh the harm to the animals, and only after everything possible is done to minimize that harm. Identifying benefits and harms may require specialized scientific and technological understanding, to be sure, but evaluating the tradeoff between them requires not technical expertise, but rather the capacity to make difficult moral judg- ments. We do not usually think of moral judgments as the unique terrain of any particular set of professionals or experts. Anyone capable of ethical reasoning has an equal claim to exper- tise, and a pluralistic society can be expected to exhibit a wide range of moral beliefs.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Guest of the Issue
    122 Guest of the Issue AVANT Volume III, Number 1/2012 www.avant.edu.pl/en 123 Mark Rowlands AVANT editors and co-workers had a chance to meet Mark Rowlands in Toruń, Poland a year ago in 2011. He gave two talks at Philosophers’ Rally , the first one on “Intentionality and the Extended Mind” (involving the discus- sion of his latest book The New Science of The Mind: From Extended Mind to Embodied Phenomenology, 2010) and the second – less formal, on his The Philosopher and the Wolf (2008) me- moirs. Professor Rowlands is certainly a man of many (philosophical) interests. His works may be divided into three cate- gories: the philosophy of the mind and cognitive science (starting from Super- venience and Materialism (1995) and The Nature Of Consciousness (2001), followed by the 2006 and 2010 books already mentioned), ethics, the moral status of non- human animals and problems of natural environment (Animal Rights (1998), The Environmental Crisis (2000) and Animals Like Us (2002)), and broadly construed cultural criticism and philosophy 101-style books (The Philosopher at the End of the Universe (2003), Everything I Know I Learned from TV (2005) and Fame (2008)). Rowland’s article Representing without Representations published in this issue is related to his earlier book, Body Language (2006). Mark Rowlands is currently the Professor of Philosophy at the University of Miami. He began his academic career with an undergraduate degree in engineering at the University of Manchester and then switched to philosophy. He was awarded his PhD in philosophy at the University of Oxford.
    [Show full text]
  • Animals & Ethics
    v ABOUT THIS BOOK This book provides an overview of the current debates about the nature and extent of our moral obligations to animals. Which, if any, uses of animals are morally wrong, which are morally permissible (i.e., not wrong) and why? What, if any, moral obligations do we, individually and as a society (and a global community), have towards animals and why? How should animals be treated? Why? We will explore the most influential and most developed answers to these questions – given by philosophers, scientists, and animal advocates and their critics – to try to determine which positions are supported by the best moral reasons. Topics include: x general theories of ethics and their implications for animals, x moral argument analysis, x general theories of our moral relations to animals, x animal minds, and x the uses of animals for food, clothing, experimentation, entertainment, hunting, as companions or pets, and other purposes. The book offers discussion questions and paper assignments to encourage readers to develop positions on theoretical and practice issues concerning ethics and animals, give reasons for their support, and respond to possible objections and criticisms. This book is organized around an initial presentation of three of the most influential methods of moral thinking for human to human interactions. We then see how these ethical theories have been extended to apply to human to animal interactions, i.e., how humans ought to treat non-human animals. These perspectives are: x a demand for equality or equal moral consideration of interests (developed by Peter Singer); vi x a demand for respect of the moral right to respectful treatment (developed by Tom Regan); and x a demand that moral decisions be made fairly and impartially and the use of a novel thought experiment designed to ensure this (developed by Mark Rowlands, following John Rawls).
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Rights and Self-Defense Theory
    The Journal of Value Inquiry (2009) 43:165–177 Ó Springer 2009 DOI 10.1007/s10790-009-9149-9 Animal Rights and Self-Defense Theory JOHN HADLEY School of Communication, Centre for Applied Philosophy & Public Ethics (CAPPE), Charles Sturt University, N5 Cunningham House, Panorama Avenue, Bathurst, NSW 2795, Australia; e-mail: [email protected] Through his recent discussion of rights-based approaches to the morality of abortion, Jeff McMahan sheds light on the implications for extending self-defense theory to nonpersons that are afforded full moral status.1 McMahanÕs principal target is Judith Thompson who argues that a woman has a right to procure an abortion on the grounds of self-defense, even if the fetus is afforded maximum moral status.2 Central to ThompsonÕs argument is her claim that people should not be obliged to help others at great cost to themselves. She says: ‘‘[N]obody is morally required to make large sacrifices, of health, of all other interests and concerns, of all other duties and commitments, for nine years, or even for nine months, in order to keep another person alive.’’3 According to Thompson, while it is reasonable to expect people to provide so-called minimal aid and assistance to individuals in need, it is asking too much of women to demand they carry an unwanted pregnancy to term given the significant personal costs involved. While broadly sympathetic to her pro-abortion position, McMahan believes that Thompson fails to notice a decisive implication of her thoroughly rights-based theory. His focus is not her key claim that the duty to assist others only goes so far but her treating a fetus as a person with full moral rights.
    [Show full text]
  • Summer Academy Animal Law 2021 Conference Handbook
    Summer Academy Animal Law 2021 Conference Handbook 19/20 June 2021 Live Zoom event Summer Academy Animal Law 2021 We are thankful to taOtfefniwciuanld serp oisnt sdoerr Oofff itzhieelle sponSsuomr dmere sro mAmcaerdaekmadyemie 2021Animal Law 2021 The mission of Animal Interfaith Alliance is to create a united voice for animals from all the major faiths to bring about a world where they are treated with respect and compassion. AIA has the following objectives: 1.To provide a stronger voice for animals through the interfaith group than can be provided by many separate voices from individual faiths; 2.To create a co-ordinated approach across the faiths to educate people on the humane treatment of animals; 3.To create a strong and co-ordinated campaigning organisation; 4.To provide a forum to learn from and share the wisdoms of other cultures and traditions; 5.To disseminate that wisdom through literature, including a regular newsletter, books and orders of service, and through the internet, including a website and social media, which can also be used as a campaign tool; 6.To inspire others through interfaith conferences and services with a major event celebrating World Animal Day on 4th October; 7.To promote a vegetarian/vegan diet, which also embraces the issues of environmental protection, healthy lifestyles and ending world hunger, and to end animal exploitation. www.animal-interfaith-alliance.com Table of contents Foreword 6 Message of Greeting 8 Program 9 Time Zone Conversation Table 11 The Summer Academy 2021 13 Joining the Summer Academy via Zoom 14 Panel Discussion 15 The Summer Academy Team 16 Annex: Preparatory reading list 17 Foreword Humans kill billions of animals every year.
    [Show full text]
  • Jm Coetzee and Animal Rights
    J.M. COETZEE AND ANIMAL RIGHTS: ELIZABETH COSTELLO’S CHALLENGE TO PHILOSOPHY Richard Alan Northover SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF ENGLISH LITERATURE IN THE FACULTY OF HUMANITIES UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA PRETORIA, 0002, SOUTH AFRICA Supervisor: Professor David Medalie OCTOBER 2009 © University of Pretoria Abstract The thesis relates Coetzee’s focus on animals to his more familiar themes of the possibility of fiction as a vehicle for serious ethical issues, the interrogation of power and authority, a concern for the voiceless and the marginalised, a keen sense of justice and the question of secular salvation. The concepts developed in substantial analyses of The Lives of Animals and Disgrace are thereafter applied to several other works of Coetzee. The thesis attempts to position J.M. Coetzee within the animal rights debate and to assess his use of his problematic persona, Elizabeth Costello, who controversially uses reason to attack the rationalism of the Western philosophical tradition and who espouses the sympathetic imagination as a means of developing respect for animals. Costello’s challenge to the philosophers is problematised by being traced back to Plato’s original formulation of the opposition between philosophers and poets. It is argued that Costello represents a fallible Socratic figure who critiques not reason per se but an unqualified rationalism. This characterisation of Costello explains her preoccupation with raising the ethical awareness of her audience, as midwife to the birth of ideas, and perceptions of her as a wise fool, a characterisation that is confirmed by the use of Bakhtin’s notion of the Socratic dialogue as one of the precursors of the modern novel.
    [Show full text]
  • Science, Sentience, and Animal Welfare
    WellBeing International WBI Studies Repository 1-2013 Science, Sentience, and Animal Welfare Robert C. Jones California State University, Chico, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/ethawel Part of the Animal Studies Commons, Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons, and the Nature and Society Relations Commons Recommended Citation Jones, R. C. (2013). Science, sentience, and animal welfare. Biology and Philosophy, 1-30. This material is brought to you for free and open access by WellBeing International. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator of the WBI Studies Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Science, Sentience, and Animal Welfare Robert C. Jones California State University, Chico KEYWORDS animal, welfare, ethics, pain, sentience, cognition, agriculture, speciesism, biomedical research ABSTRACT I sketch briefly some of the more influential theories concerned with the moral status of nonhuman animals, highlighting their biological/physiological aspects. I then survey the most prominent empirical research on the physiological and cognitive capacities of nonhuman animals, focusing primarily on sentience, but looking also at a few other morally relevant capacities such as self-awareness, memory, and mindreading. Lastly, I discuss two examples of current animal welfare policy, namely, animals used in industrialized food production and in scientific research. I argue that even the most progressive current welfare policies lag behind, are ignorant of, or arbitrarily disregard the science on sentience and cognition. Introduction The contemporary connection between research on animal1 cognition and the moral status of animals goes back almost 40 years to the publication of two influential books: Donald Griffin’s The Question of Animal Awareness: Evolutionary Continuity of Mental Experience (1976) and Peter Singer’s groundbreaking Animal Liberation (1975).
    [Show full text]
  • Shivley Colostate 0053A 13792.Pdf (3.519Mb)
    DISSERTATION EXPLORING ANIMAL WELFARE THROUGH AN INVESTIGATION OF VETERINARY EDUCATION AND ON-FARM ASSESSMENTS OF DAIRY CALF WELFARE Submitted by Chelsey B. Shivley Department of Animal Sciences In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado Summer 2016 Doctoral Committee: Advisor: Temple Grandin Franklyn B. Garry Terry E. Engle Bernard E. Rollin Martha L. Kesel Copyright by Chelsey B. Shivley 2016 All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT EXPLORING ANIMAL WELFARE THROUGH AN INVESTIGATION OF VETERINARY EDUCATION AND ON-FARM ASSESSMENTS OF DAIRY CALF WELFARE Animal welfare encompasses many different areas, including science, ethics, economics and law. Veterinarians have an opportunity to serve as leaders in the field of animal welfare due to their interaction with all aspects of animal use. In order to do so, they must be properly trained, and veterinary curricula were evaluated for courses related to animal welfare, ethics, and behavior. Consumers are concerned with how animals are managed, and aspects of welfare of preweaned dairy calves, including colostrum quality, passive transfer status, average daily gain, and bull calf management, were evaluated. The objective of the first study presented in Chapter III was to explore the extent to which veterinary colleges and schools accredited by the AVMA Council on Education (COE) have incorporated specific courses related to animal welfare, behavior, and ethics. The design included a survey and curriculum review. The sample included all 49 AVMA COE–accredited veterinary colleges and schools (institutions). The study consisted of 2 parts. In part 1, a survey regarding animal welfare, behavior, and ethics was e-mailed to the associate dean of academic affairs at all 49 AVMA COE–accredited institutions.
    [Show full text]
  • Science and Sense: the Case for Abolishing Sow Stalls
    January 2013 Science and Sense THE CASE FOR ABOLISHING SOW STALLS This report was written by Dr Malcolm Caulfield and PATRONS reviewed by Voiceless’s Scientific Expert Advisory Council. • Professor J.M. Coetzee It is endorsed by the World Society for the Protection Nobel Prize for Literature Winner 2003, author of of Animals, Compassion in World Farming and Animals The Lives of Animals and Elizabeth Costello Australia. • Brian Sherman AM Businessman and philanthropist Images courtesy of Animals Australia. • Dr Jane Goodall World-renowned primatologist and animal advocate © January 2013 • The Hon Michael Kirby AC CMG ISBN: 978-0-9803740-6-3 (paperback) Former Justice of the High Court of Australia ISBN: 978-0-9803740-7-0 (online) SCIENTIFIC EXPERT ADVISORY COUNCIL Voiceless • Professor Marc Bekoff 2 Paddington Street Professor Emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Paddington NSW 2021 Australia University of Colorado, Boulder. Co-founder with Jane T. +612 9357 0723 F. +612 9357 0711 Goodall of Ethologists for the Ethical Treatment of [email protected] Animals. • Dr Malcolm Caulfield Founder and Principal Lawyer of the Animal Welfare Community Legal Centre. Formerly a pharmacologist in ABOUT VOICELESS industry and academia. Voiceless is an independent and non-profit think tank • Professor Clive Phillips dedicated to alleviating the suffering of animals in Foundation Chair of Animal Welfare, Centre for Animal Australia. Established in 2004 by father and daughter team, Welfare and Ethics, University of Queensland. Brian Sherman AM and Ondine Sherman, Voiceless: • Professor Lesley J. Rogers • Creates and fosters networks of leading lawyers, Emeritus Professor of Neuroscience and Animal politicians, businesspeople and professionals to Behaviour, University of New England.
    [Show full text]
  • Syllabus Is Subject to Change
    Photo: JoAnne McArthur Ethics and Animals1 Fall 2015 ANST-UA 400.001 Descripon This course is an introduc<on to the ethics of our rela<onships to nonhuman animals, from historical and contemporary standpoints. We will examine the ways animals have been denied and granted moral status in philosophical tradi<ons and in prac<ce, the significance of the human/animal difference, and what “speciesism” means. We will then survey the main philosophical theories arguing about the treatment of animals, and we will cover various prac<cal issues surrounding our use of, or concern for, animals. We will address the morality of raising and killing animals for food, animal experimenta<on, keeping animals in cap<vity for entertainment or science, keeping them as pets, managing urban wildlife, reducing suffering in the wild, wildlife conserva<on, etc. We will ask whether animals should have legal rights, and which are the best strategies to protect them. There are no prior requirements in philosophy, animal studies, ethics, or any other field, except for a genuine willingness to confront with a variety of views, concepts, arguments, and hot topics. Given the controversial nature of the subject, student par<cipa<on, based on careful argumenta<on and respecRul apprecia<on of different views, is strongly encouraged; no specific view will be favored. Praccal Informaon Time: Tues. 5:00-7:30pm Place: Global Center for Academic and Spiritual Life, #269 Instructor: Nicolas Delon Email: [email protected] Office: 285 Mercer st, #1006 Office hours: T & W 9-11:30am (reserve slot: goo.gl/0tl38l), or by appointment Grader: Sharisse Kanet, [email protected], office hours by appointment 1 This syllabus is subject to change.
    [Show full text]
  • E. Rincón Y J. Riechmann TAUROMAQUIA 2017
    Publicado en Diálogo Filosófico 99, septiembre-diciembre de 2017, p. 393-418. ISSN 0213-1196. ¿Cabe seguir justificando la tauromaquia en el siglo XXI? Jorge Riechmann (UAM, Madrid) Eduardo Rincón (UNIMINUTO, Bogotá) RESUMEN: Necesitamos construir una cultura no de dominación sobre la naturaleza, sino de simbiosis con ella. En esa perspectiva de transformación cultural profunda, renunciar al toreo tiene una dimensión simbólica importantísima –más allá del sufrimiento de los animales directamente implicados (que son muy pocos en comparación con los implicados en las prácticas harto más atroces de la ganadería industrial). La filosofía moral contemporánea ha argumentado con solidez la necesidad de dejar atrás el antropocentrismo y el especismo en nuestro trato con los animales no humanos. ABSTRACT: We need to build a culture not of domination over nature, but of symbiosis with it. In this perspective of profound cultural transformation, renouncing bullfighting has an important symbolic dimension - beyond the suffering of the animals directly involved (which are very few compared to those involved in the most atrocious practices of industrial livestock). Contemporary moral philosophy has strongly argued the need to leave behind anthropocentrism and speciesism in our dealings with nonhuman animals. PALABRAS CLAVE: tauromaquia, especismo, antropocentrismo, utilitarismo, derechos, virtudes. 1 Planteamiento En el contexto de las discusiones contemporáneas sobre el tipo de relaciones que tenemos con los animales no humanos, muchos son los debates y las fuentes argumentativas que dan cuenta de la complejidad del asunto. Con respecto a la tauromaquia, han sido reiteradas las discusiones que se han venido sosteniendo en España, Colombia, México, Portugal y Francia, países en donde aún subsiste a la baja la práctica del toreo en diversas modalidades.
    [Show full text]