DOCSLIB.ORG

L'industrie Du Bien

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

L’Industrie du bien Philanthropie, altruisme efficace et altruisme efficace animalier Estiva Reus Les Cahiers antispécistes, n° 43, août 2019 Les Cahiers antispécistes Les Cahiers antispécistes sont une revue fondée en 1991. Elle aborde toute sorte de sujets relatifs à la question animale. La périodicité est irrégulière. La rédaction choisit les textes en fonction de l’intérêt qu’elle y trouve et des débats qui peuvent en découler, mais les opinions qui y sont exprimées n’engagent que leurs auteurs. La revue ne fonctionne pas sur le principe de soumission spontanée de textes par des auteurs qui seraient ensuite acceptés ou refusés. Tous les numéros des Cahiers antispécistes sont en libre accès sur le site de la revue. Le numéro 43 a été rendu public le 12 août 2019. Les Cahiers antispécistes, n° 43, août 2019 1 Sommaire Introduction 3 Première partie. Philanthropie 7 Chapitre 1. La philanthropie aux États-Unis (et un peu ailleurs) : quelques chiffres 9 Chapitre 2. Philanthrocapitalisme 23 Deuxième partie. Altruisme efficace 47 Chapitre 3. L’altruisme efficace : une communauté, des orGanisations 49 Chapitre 4. La maison de mots des altruistes efficaces 69 Chapitre 5. Un mouvement d’inspiration utilitariste 77 Chapitre 6. PsycholoGie et utilitarisme 93 Chapitre 7. L’altruisme efficace et les deux dimensions de l’utilitarisme 103 Troisième partie. Altruisme efficace animalier 115 Chapitre 8. L’altruisme efficace animalier : vue d’ensemble 117 Chapitre 9. MiraGes de la quantification 133 Chapitre 10. Utilitarisme et inclusivité dans l’AEA 149 Chapitre 11. Se fonder sur les faits pour orienter au mieux l’action 173 Chapitre 12. Animaux sauvaGes : les prémices de la bioloGie du bien-être ? 185 Chapitre 13. Nouveaux fronts de l’action pour les animaux manGés 203 Conclusion : un mouvement c’est mouvant 217 Bibliographie 225 Table des matières détaillée 229 Les Cahiers antispécistes, n° 43, août 2019 2 Les Cahiers antispécistes, n° 43, août 2019 3 Introduction Un livre dont le vrai sujet est l’altruisme efficace animalier mais où il sera néanmoins question de pas mal d’autres choses… L’altruisme efficace animalier (AEA) compte très peu d’années d’existence. Il a déjà un certain nombre de réalisations à son actif, et constitue désormais l’un des pôles qui contribuent à la réflexion du mouvement animaliste sur les objectifs à priviléGier et les moyens de les atteindre. Ce volume est né de la volonté de mieux le connaître. Pourtant, on n’y viendra que dans la troisième partie de cet ouvraGe. En effet, pour comprendre dans quelles conditions l’AEA a pu naître et grandir, il faut au préalable s’intéresser au terreau et au climat qui ont permis son développement. J’annonce le plan comme à l’école La première partie, « Philanthropie », plante le décor qui préexiste à l’apparition de l’altruisme efficace (AE). Le contexte économique est celui de la concentration d’une part croissante du patrimoine entre les mains d’une étroite franGe d’ultra-riches, qui s’accompagne d’un renforcement de leur rôle dans la philanthropie (chapitre 1). Cette phase de l’activité caritative, qui débute dans les années 1980, a été nommée aux États-Unis « philanthrocapitalisme ». Elle se caractérise par un discours et des pratiques que l’on découvrira au chapitre 2, parmi lesquelles des emprunts au monde de l’entreprise et de la finance : le souci d’orGaniser la philanthropie aussi riGoureusement que l’action à but lucratif, l’attention portée au rendement social de l’investissement charitable, la volonté d’évaluer et quantifier les résultats. Le deuxième partie traite de l’AE, qui n’existe que depuis les années 2010 en tant que mouvement constitué. Il a emprunté des manières de faire et de dire qui sont celles de la philanthropie étasunienne des dernières décennies, mais présente aussi des traits qui lui sont propres. On commencera par évoquer son histoire, les orGanisations phares qui le composent, et le profil socioloGique de ses participants (chapitre 3). Une partie des idées, concepts et vocabulaire typiques de l’AE seront vus au chapitre 4. On abordera ensuite, sous plusieurs anGles, le fait qu’il s’agit d’un mouvement qui s’inscrit entièrement dans l’éthique utilitariste (chapitres 5 à 7). La troisième partie est consacrée à l’altruisme efficace animalier (AEA). Le chapitre 8 présente les orGanisations de l’AE dédiées à la cause animale et les domaines dans lesquels elles interviennent. Les chapitres 9 et 10 s’attachent à des aspects de l’AEA qui traduisent son appartenance à l’AE en Général : le Goût pour la quantification (chap. 9), et les valeurs ou la philosophie qui l’animent Les Cahiers antispécistes, n° 43, août 2019 4 (chap. 10). Dans le chapitre 11, l’AEA est saisi comme partie prenante du mouvement animaliste au sens larGe. On verra, à travers quelques exemples, qu’il dialoGue avec d’autres composantes de ce mouvement et reprend à son compte des questionnements qui le traversent. Les deux derniers chapitres abordent des thèmes sur lesquels l’AEA s’est investi assez récemment, et sur lesquels son activité va sans doute aller en grandissant : la condition des animaux sauvaGes (chapitre 12) et de nouveaux fronts dans l’action en faveur des animaux d’élevaGe (chapitre 13). Pourquoi L’Industrie du bien ? Un mot sur les raisons qui m’ont conduite à intituler ce volume L’Industrie du bien. À vrai dire, le sous-titre – Philanthropie, altruisme efficace et altruisme efficace animalier – indique plus clairement le contenu de l’ouvraGe. Mais un titre se doit d’être court. Or, la polysémie du mot industrie fait qu’il permet d’annoncer en condensé ce dont il va être question. Au sens ancien, l’industrie désiGne l’habileté à faire quelque chose, le savoir-faire. Quand les économistes des 18e et 19e siècles parlent des raisons qui conduisent les personnes à diriGer leur industrie vers tel ou tel secteur, ils pensent aux travailleurs cherchant à tirer un revenu de l’emploi de leur force de travail et de leur qualification. Or, il sera question dans ce volume de travailleurs, rémunérés ou bénévoles, cherchant à faire le bien avec savoir-faire, avec qualification, et de conceptions du travail bien fait dans l’action charitable. Dans la lanGue d’aujourd’hui, l’industrie désigne le secteur produisant des objets manufacturés, ce qui n’est nullement le sujet ici. Mais le mot s’emploie aussi au sens larGe pour désiGner n’importe quelle activité orGanisée menée à Grande échelle. Ce sens-là convient tout à fait à la philanthropie qui, dans quelques pays du moins, constitue un secteur d’activité important par les ressources qu’elle mobilise et par son impact dans les domaines où elle intervient. Accessoirement, on trouve parmi les philanthropes bon nombre de personnalités qui sont par ailleurs des capitaines d’industrie. Une approche descriptive Dans certains chapitres, des débats suscités par la philanthropie moderne ou par l’AE seront évoqués. Cependant, ce livre n’a pas vocation à prescrire ce qu’il faut en penser (« Pour ou contre ? »). Il s’aGit plutôt d’une exploration de type « Qu’est-ce que c’est ? ». La question du « pour ou contre » dépasse mes moyens. Pendant quelques mois, j’ai parcouru des écrits (pas tous !) portant sur ces thèmes. Cela ne fait pas de moi une personne qui domine (surplombe) le sujet au point d’être plus apte à poser un jugement que la foule d’intervenants qui œuvrent dans ces domaines ou les analysent. De plus, on rencontre en chemin de bonnes vielles questions Les Cahiers antispécistes, n° 43, août 2019 5 telles que celles du capitalisme, de la décision en situation d’incertitude, ou de la nature du bien. Je ne vais pas introduire dans le texte des diGressions Géantes sur ce qui en a été dit, dans un sens ou un autre, depuis quelques siècles, et je n’ai pas à offrir à leur propos d’analyses surpassant toutes celles déjà présentes sur le marché. Surtout, être « pour ou contre » la philanthropie moderne ou l’AE n’a pas grand sens ni intérêt. Il ne s’aGit pas de blocs monolithiques dont les traits seraient arrêtés une fois pour toutes. On n’est pas non plus face à un choix binaire : tout prendre ou tout jeter. Et l’option de prendre les commandes pour orienter la chose à notre Goût n’est pas disponible. On ne nous invitera pas à piloter la philanthropie mondiale. Même nos chances de décrocher un emploi dans une association de l’AE sont minimes. Par contre, mieux comprendre de quoi il s’aGit peut aider chacun, avec la situation et les convictions qui sont les siennes, à savoir où puiser dans cet ensemble les travaux, contacts ou conseils qui lui sont utiles. On peut décider d’unir ses forces à des acteurs de l’AE sur des dossiers particuliers, ou à l’inverse prendre acte que dans tel domaine, notre approche est incompatible avec la leur. On peut aussi apprendre qu’ils n’interviennent pas du tout sur tel sujet qui nous motive, et donc qu’en la matière, ce n’est pas chez eux qu’il faut chercher l’inspiration. Une émanation du monde anglophone Il existe évidemment d’autres sources que ce numéro des Cahiers pour s’informer en français sur l’AE. On peut visiter le site et la paGe Facebook de l’association Altruisme Efficace France. Quelques publications d’auteurs appartenant à ce mouvement ont été traduites. On ne peut que recommander de les lire. Cependant, le présent ouvraGe n’est pas – je l’espère – redondant avec ces sources.
Recommended publications
  • Effective Altruism William Macaskill and Theron Pummer

    Effective Altruism William Macaskill and Theron Pummer

    1 Effective Altruism William MacAskill and Theron Pummer Climate change is on course to cause millions of deaths and cost the world economy trillions of dollars. Nearly a billion people live in extreme poverty, millions of them dying each year of easily preventable diseases. Just a small fraction of the thousands of nuclear weapons on hair‐trigger alert could easily bring about global catastrophe. New technologies like synthetic biology and artificial intelligence bring unprece­ dented risks. Meanwhile, year after year billions and billions of factory‐farmed ani­ mals live and die in misery. Given the number of severe problems facing the world today, and the resources required to solve them, we may feel at a loss as to where to even begin. The good news is that we can improve things with the right use of money, time, talent, and effort. These resources can bring about a great deal of improvement, or very little, depending on how they are allocated. The effective altruism movement consists of a growing global community of peo­ ple who use reason and evidence to assess how to do as much good as possible, and who take action on this basis. Launched in 2011, the movement now has thousands of members, as well as influence over billions of dollars. The movement has substan­ tially increased awareness of the fact that some altruistic activities are much more cost‐effective than others, in the sense that they do much more good than others per unit of resource expended. According to the nonprofit organization GiveWell, it costs around $3,500 to prevent someone from dying of malaria by distributing bed­ nets.
  • "Go Veg" Campaigns of US Animal Rights Organizations

    "Go Veg" Campaigns of US Animal Rights Organizations

    Society and Animals 18 (2010) 163-182 brill.nl/soan Framing Animal Rights in the “Go Veg” Campaigns of U.S. Animal Rights Organizations Carrie Packwood Freeman Georgia State University [email protected] Abstract How much do animal rights activists talk about animal rights when they attempt to persuade America’s meat-lovers to stop eating nonhuman animals? Th is study serves as the basis for a unique evaluation and categorization of problems and solutions as framed by fi ve major U.S. animal rights organizations in their vegan/food campaigns. Th e fi ndings reveal that the organiza- tions framed the problems as: cruelty and suff ering; commodifi cation; harm to humans and the environment; and needless killing. To solve problems largely blamed on factory farming, activists asked consumers to become “vegetarian” (meaning vegan) or to reduce animal product con- sumption, some requesting “humane” reforms. While certain messages supported animal rights, promoting veganism and respect for animals’ subject status, many frames used animal welfare ideology to achieve rights solutions, conservatively avoiding a direct challenge to the dominant human/animal dualism. In support of ideological authenticity, this paper recommends that vegan campaigns emphasize justice, respect, life, freedom, environmental responsibility, and a shared animality. Keywords animal rights, campaigns, farm animal, framing, ideology, vegan, vegetarian How much do or should animal rights activists talk about animal rights when they attempt to persuade America’s meat-lovers to stop eating animals? As participants in a counterhegemonic social movement, animal rights organiza- tions are faced with the discursive challenge of redefi ning accepted practices, such as farming and eating nonhuman animals, as socially unacceptable practices.
  • Givedirectly

    Givedirectly

    GiveDirectly GiveDirectly provides unconditional cash transfers using cell phone technology to some of the world’s poorest people, as well as refugees, urban youth, and disaster victims. They also are currently running a historic Universal Basic Income initiative, delivering a basic income to 20,000+ people in Kenya in a 12-year study. United States (USD) Donate to GiveDirectly Please select your country & currency. Donations are tax-deductible in the country selected. Founded in Moved Delivered cash to 88% of donations sent to families 2009 US$140M 130K in poverty families Other ways to donate We recommend that gifts up to $1,000 be made online by credit card. If you are giving more than $1,000, please consider one of these alternatives. Check Bank Transfer Donor Advised Fund Cryptocurrencies Stocks or Shares Bequests Corporate Matching Program The problem: traditional methods of international giving are complex — and often inefficient Often, donors give money to a charity, which then passes along the funds to partners at the local level. This makes it difficult for donors to determine how their money will be used and whether it will reach its intended recipients. Additionally, charities often provide interventions that may not be what the recipients actually need to improve their lives. Such an approach can treat recipients as passive beneficiaries rather than knowledgeable and empowered shapers of their own lives. The solution: unconditional cash transfers Most poverty relief initiatives require complicated infrastructure, and alleviate the symptoms of poverty rather than striking at the source. By contrast, unconditional cash transfers are straightforward, providing funds to some of the poorest people in the world so that they can buy the essentials they need to set themselves up for future success.
  • October 26, 2014

    October 26, 2014

    Animal Charity Evaluators Board of Directors Meeting Type of Meeting: Standard Monthly Meeting Date: October 26, 2014 In attendance: Chairperson: Simon Knutsson Treasurer: Brian Tomasik Secretary: Rob Wiblin Board Member: Sam Bankman­Fried Board Member: Peter Singer Board Member: S. Greenberg Executive Director: Jon Bockman Absent: Quorum established: Yes 1. Call to order: SK called the meeting to order at 9:05 am PST 2. Important questions document 1. In the philosophy document (and in the important questions document and the strategy plan, which refer to it): a. Edit the part about veganism, which can be seen as a method for benefiting animals rather than a vision or a philosophical position. b. Edit the part about wild animal suffering. The challenge is to balance bringing up an important idea with making a good impression on those who are not already aware of it or interested in it. Some board members think that we have been giving it too much space in these documents and others think it warrants that level of space because of the importance of the issue. i. Could interview others about wild animal suffering or invite them to guest blog about it. c. Improve general writing quality based on the comments from the board. 2. Consider writing a report that is as objective as possible on the important questions. 3. PS can help getting academics interested in effective animal activism. a. Has a contact at the Animal Studies Initiative at NYU – maybe this person could organize a conference b. Researchers studying persuasion might be interested (ACE or PS can encourage them) 4.
  • What​​Can​​Nuclear​​Power​​Teach​​Us

    What​​Can​​Nuclear​​Power​​Teach​​Us

    What can nuclear power teach us about the ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ institutional adoption of clean meat? ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ December 28, 2017 ​ ​ ​ ​ Author: J. Mohorčich ​ ​ ​ ​ © 2017 Sentience Institute ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Edited by Jacy Reese. External review pending. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Abstract Studies on clean meat adoption have mostly focused on consumer acceptance, but institutional ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ choices by governments, industries, and news media can also delay or accelerate the adoption of ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ new technologies. This report examines the factors that contributed to nuclear power’s ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ widespread adoption in France and applies those findings to the question of how to advance the ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ adoption of clean meat. Among other conclusions, this report finds that supply constraints on a ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ competing good can accelerate the adoption of a new technology, that technical explanations ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ about why a new product is safe are likely to backfire, that safety incidents that appear to confirm ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ preexisting concerns are especially damaging to a new technology, and that states reliant on ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ imports to meet their needs for a good or service are more promising targets
  • Whether and Where to Give1 (Forthcoming in Philosophy and Public Affairs)

    Whether and Where to Give1 (Forthcoming in Philosophy and Public Affairs)

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by St Andrews Research Repository 1 Whether and Where to Give1 (Forthcoming in Philosophy and Public Affairs) Theron Pummer University of St Andrews 1. The Ethics of Giving and Effective Altruism The ethics of giving has traditionally focused on whether, and how much, to give to charities helping people in extreme poverty.2 In more recent years, the discussion has increasingly focused on where to give, spurred by an appreciation of the substantial differences in cost- effectiveness between charities. According to a commonly cited example, $40,000 can be used either to help 1 blind person by training a seeing-eye dog in the United States or to help 2,000 blind people by providing surgeries reversing the effects of trachoma in Africa.3 Effective altruists recommend that we give large sums to charity, but by far their more central message is that we give effectively, i.e., to whatever charities would do the most good per dollar donated.4 In this paper, I’ll assume that it’s not wrong not to give bigger, but will explore to what extent it may well nonetheless be wrong not to give better. The main claim I’ll argue for here is that in many cases it would be wrong of you to give a sum of money to charities that do less good than others you could have given to instead, even if 1 I am extremely grateful to Derek Parfit, Roger Crisp, Jeff McMahan, and Peter Singer for extremely helpful feedback and encouragement.
  • An Inquiry Into Animal Rights Vegan Activists' Perception and Practice of Persuasion

    An Inquiry Into Animal Rights Vegan Activists' Perception and Practice of Persuasion

    An Inquiry into Animal Rights Vegan Activists’ Perception and Practice of Persuasion by Angela Gunther B.A., Simon Fraser University, 2006 Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in the School of Communication ! Angela Gunther 2012 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY Summer 2012 All rights reserved. However, in accordance with the Copyright Act of Canada, this work may be reproduced, without authorization, under the conditions for “Fair Dealing.” Therefore, limited reproduction of this work for the purposes of private study, research, criticism, review and news reporting is likely to be in accordance with the law, particularly if cited appropriately. Approval Name: Angela Gunther Degree: Master of Arts Title of Thesis: An Inquiry into Animal Rights Vegan Activists’ Perception and Practice of Persuasion Examining Committee: Chair: Kathi Cross Gary McCarron Senior Supervisor Associate Professor Robert Anderson Supervisor Professor Michael Kenny External Examiner Professor, Anthropology SFU Date Defended/Approved: June 28, 2012 ii Partial Copyright Licence iii Abstract This thesis interrogates the persuasive practices of Animal Rights Vegan Activists (ARVAs) in order to determine why and how ARVAs fail to convince people to become and stay veg*n, and what they might do to succeed. While ARVAs and ARVAism are the focus of this inquiry, the approaches, concepts and theories used are broadly applicable and therefore this investigation is potentially useful for any activist or group of activists wishing to interrogate and improve their persuasive practices. Keywords: Persuasion; Communication for Social Change; Animal Rights; Veg*nism; Activism iv Table of Contents Approval ............................................................................................................................. ii! Partial Copyright Licence .................................................................................................
  • Non-Paywalled

    Non-Paywalled

    Wringing the Most Good Out of a FACEBOOK FORTUNE SAN FRANCISCO itting behind a laptop affixed with a decal of a child reaching for an GIVING apple, an illustration from Shel Silverstein’s The Giving Tree, Cari Tuna quips about endowing a Tuna Room in the Bass Library at Yale Univer- sity, her alma mater. But it’s unlikely any of the fortune that she and her husband, Face- By MEGAN O’NEIL Sbook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz, command — estimated by Forbes at more than $9 billion — will ever be used to name a building. Five years after they signed the Giving Pledge, the youngest on the list of billionaires promising to donate half of their wealth, the couple is embarking on what will start at double-digit millions of dollars in giving to an eclectic range of causes, from overhauling the criminal-justice system to minimizing the potential risks from advanced artificial intelligence. To figure out where to give, they created the Open Philanthropy Project, which uses academic research, among other things, to identify high-poten- tial, overlooked funding opportunities. Ms. Tuna, a former Wall Street Journal reporter, hopes the approach will influence other wealthy donors in Silicon The youngest Valley and beyond who, like her, seek the biggest possible returns for their philanthropic dollars. Already, a co-founder of Instagram and his spouse have made a $750,000 signers of the commitment to support the project. What’s more, Ms. Tuna and those working alongside her at the Open Philanthropy Project are documenting every step online — sometimes in Giving Pledge are eyebrow-raising detail — for the world to follow along.
  • Against 'Effective Altruism'

    Against 'Effective Altruism'

    Against ‘Effective Altruism’ Alice Crary Effective Altruism (EA) is a programme for rationalising for the most part adopt the attitude that they have no charitable giving, positioning individuals to do the ‘most serious critics and that sceptics ought to be content with good’ per expenditure of money or time. It was first for- their ongoing attempts to fine-tune their practice. mulated – by two Oxford philosophers just over a decade It is a posture belied by the existence of formidable ago–as an application of the moral theory consequential- critical resources both inside and outside the philosoph- ism, and from the outset one of its distinctions within ical tradition in which EA originates. In light of the undis- the philanthropic world was expansion of the class of puted impact of EA, and its success in attracting idealistic charity-recipients to include non-human animals. EA young people, it is important to forcefully make the case has been the target of a fair bit of grumbling, and even that it owes its success primarily not to the – question- some mockery, from activists and critics on the left, who able – value of its moral theory but to its compatibility associate consequentialism with depoliticising tenden- with political and economic institutions responsible for cies of welfarism. But EA has mostly gotten a pass, with some of the very harms it addresses. The sincere ded- many detractors concluding that, however misguided, its ication of many individual adherents notwithstanding, efforts to get bankers, tech entrepreneurs and the like to reflection on EA reveals a straightforward example of give away their money cost-effectively does no serious moral corruption.
  • Dossier : Questions D'éthique Animale

    Dossier : Questions D'éthique Animale

    Ethica Volume 22, No 1 (Printemps 2018) Liminaire Dossier : Questions d’éthique animale Coordonné par François Jaquet et Angela Martin1 La question animale : une perspective pluridisciplinaire Les philosophes se sont toujours intéressés au statut moral des animaux non humains. Dans l’Antiquité déjà, Aristote, les Épicuriens et les Stoïciens soutenaient que les bêtes n’étaient pas concernées par la justice parce que dépourvues de raison, à quoi Porphyre (1979) et Plutarque (2002) rétorquaient que le respect leur était dû en vertu de leur seule sensibilité2. Quelques siècles plus tard, des thèses similaires furent défendues notamment par René Descartes (1973) et Emmanuel Kant (1986, 1997), d’une part, et par Michel de Montaigne (1962), Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1973) et Jeremy Bentham (1907), de l’autre. Ce n’est pourtant qu’à la fin du XXe siècle que l’éthique animale s’est constituée comme discipline philosophique à part entière – plus précisément en 1975, année de publication de l’ouvrage fondateur Animal Liberation, du philosophe australien Peter Singer. Dans le chapitre premier de La Libération animale, où il expose la théorie qu’il applique par la suite à des pratiques concrètes, Singer affirme que « tous les animaux sont égaux », une thèse souvent mal comprise. Car l’affirmation égalitariste n’est pas descriptive : il ne s’agit en aucun cas de prétendre que les animaux possèdent les mêmes capacités que leurs cousins humains. Elle est normative : les animaux sont nos égaux en ce sens que nous devons à leurs intérêts la même considération que nous devons aux intérêts similaires de nos congénères. Les animaux – la plupart de ceux que nous exploitons du moins – sont sentients, c’est-à-dire capables de ressentir des choses agréables ou désagréables.
  • Messages to Overcome Naturalness Concerns in Clean Meat Acceptance: Primary Findings

    Messages to Overcome Naturalness Concerns in Clean Meat Acceptance: Primary Findings

    Messages to Overcome Naturalness Concerns in Clean Meat Acceptance: Primary Findings July 2018 Authors: Jo Anderson & Chris Bryant Research team: Jo Anderson (Faunalytics), Chris Bryant (University of Bath), Kathryn Asher (Animal Charity Evaluators; formerly Faunalytics), Che Green (Faunalytics), Kris Gasteratos (Cellular Agriculture Society), Bruce Friedrich (The Good Food Institute), Jeff Rotman (Deakin University), Jamie Macfarlane (The Good Food Institute). Funding: We gratefully acknowledge Animal Charity Evaluators and the Animal Advocacy Research Fund for their assistance in funding this project. Introduction Studies of clean meat (also called Contents cultured meat, in vitro meat, etc.) to date Key Findings (page 3) have found that consumers’ willingness to eat it is uncertain (Pew Research, Methodology (page 4) 2014; Slade, 2018; Surveygoo, 2018; Terminology The Grocer, 2017; Wilks & Phillips, 2017; Sample & Procedure YouGov, 2013). Results (page 6) Did Participants Believe the Messages? One of consumers’ primary concerns Perceived Unnaturalness of Clean Meat about clean meat is its alleged Perceived Unnaturalness of Conventional Meat unnaturalness. This is a theme that has Perceived Importance of Meat Naturalness been seen in many qualitative studies Willingness to Pay (WTP) for Clean Meat (Laestadius, 2015; Verbeke, Marcu, et Behavioral Intentions al., 2015) and cited as one of the most Beliefs about Clean Meat common reasons for rejecting clean meat Attitude in surveys (The Grocer, 2017). Indeed, Affect Siegrist and Sütterlin (2017) have Overall Pattern of Results: Supplementary demonstrated that the perceived Analysis unnaturalness of clean meat explains a Conclusions (page 16) great deal of consumers’ safety Experimental Messages concerns. Further, Siegrist, Sütterlin, and Implications Hartmann (2018) show that this Limitations perception evokes disgust and likely Future Directions causes rejection of clean meat in References (page 19) practice.
  • Farm Animal Funders Briefings

    Farm Animal Funders Briefings

    BRIEFING SERIES February, 2019 v1.0 TABLE OF CONTENTS Smart Giving: Some Fundamentals 2 Supporting Alternative Foods To Farmed Animal Products 4 Veg Advocacy 7 Corporate Campaigns For Welfare Reforms 9 Fishes 12 Legal and Legislative Methods 13 A Global Perspective on Farmed Animal Advocacy 15 Shallow Review: Increasing Donations Through Your Donation 19 2 Smart Giving: Some Fundamentals How Much To Give? There are a number of approaches to how much to give, Why Give? including: For the world: There are over 100 hundred billion farmed animals alive at any moment in conditions that Giving what you don’t need cause severe suffering, that number has been increasing over time and is projected to continue to do so. Consuming animal products is associated with many x % Pledging a set percentage negative health outcomes and animal agriculture is a chief cause of environmental degradation—causing approximately 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions. % Giving to reach a personal best For you: Giving activates the brain’s reward centers, Some people give everything above what is necessary to resulting in increased life satisfaction and happiness. satisfy their needs, in part because of evidence that high levels of income have diminishing returns on wellbeing. How Can We Help Identify Cost-effective Funding Thousands of people (including some of the wealthiest) How To Give? Opportunities? publicly pledge some set percentage for giving. Pledging could increase your commitment to giving, further Effective giving is important because top Farmed Animal Funders release briefings and research connect you with a giving community, and inspire others. giving options are plausibly many times more different promising areas.