Abstract
The Swiss expert report suggests thatthe inherent dignity of a living being be identifiedwith its inherent value. But the phrase ``inherentvalue of a living being'' seems to connote two conceptsof inherent value. One has a morally obligatingcharacter but is counterintuitive because of itsegalitarianism. The other is one of non-moral value.It is more compatible with considered intuitions butinsufficient for substantiating the expert report'sclaim that human beings have moral duties towardsanimals and plants. The paper discusses theseconcepts. Consideration is then given to the problemof how discursive support can be generated for theexpert report's claim that human beings have the moralduty to abstain from impairing those functions andabilities of a non‐uman being that members of itsspecies as a rule can practice.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Balzer, P., K. P. Rippe and P. Schaber, Was heisst Würde der Kreatur? Gutachten für das Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft, Schriftenreihe Umwelt 294, Bern 1997.
DePaul, M. R., Balance and Refinement: Beyond coherence methods of moral inquiry Routledge, London and New York, 1993.
Rollin, B. E., The Frankenstein Syndrome: Ethical and social issues in the genetic engineering of animals (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995).
Taylor, P. W., Respect for Nature: A theory of environmental ethics (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1986).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Heeger, R. Genetic Engineering and the Dignity of Creatures. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 13, 43–51 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009503412364
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009503412364