Decent conduct toward animals: A traditional approach
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Teorema: International Journal of Philosophy 18 (3):61-83 (1999)
The Bishop of Questoriana has recently asked for a pontifical document ‘furnishing a doctrinal foundation of love and respect for life existing on the earth’. Mainstream moralists have urged, since the Axial Era, that it is human life that most demands love and respect. We realize and perfect our own humanity by recognizing humanity in every other, of whatever creed or race. Realizing that biological species are not natural kinds, more recent moralists have hoped to found moral decency either on a respect for ‘rationality’ which excludes many of our conspecifics, or on simple loyalty to our immediate kin. Neither option is without its costs, and Catholic moralists in particular have often been suspicious of a morality that seems to lead to contempt for ordinary human life. Neither advocacy of ‘animal rights’ nor utilitarian calculation of animal pains and pleasures sit well with a traditional Catholic morality. Conversely, many of those who defend traditional practices such as hunting, farming or goading animals to fight, themselves suppose that ‘human’ and ‘animals’ may sometimes inhabit the same moral universe, that there are virtues that both may display in ‘noble action’. Developing this thought, it is possible to locate decency elsewhere than in an over-intellectual respect for ‘reason’. Decent treatment of animals (as of others) is that form of life which lets us live together ‘humanely’, in appreciation of the actual beings they are. Virtue, as Aristotle argued, lies less in acting nobly than in appreciating nobility. Those who claim to appreciate such nobility in beasts must learn to live humanely.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Ben Mepham (2000). ``Würde der Kreatur'' and the Common Morality. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 13 (1):65-78.
Marc Bekoff (2008). Increasing Our Compassion Footprint: The Animals' Manifesto. Zygon 43 (4):771-781.
S. F. Sapontzis (1988). On Justifying the Exploitation of Animals in Research. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 13 (2):177-196.
Marc Bekoff (2007). Animals Matter: A Biologist Explains Why We Should Treat Animals with Compassion and Respect. Distributed in the United States by Random House.
Stephen Thomas Newmyer (2006). Animals, Rights, and Reason in Plutarch and Modern Ethics. Routledge.
Maurice Hamington (2008). Learning Ethics From Our Relationships with Animals. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 22 (2):177-188.
Robert Bass (2012). Lives in the Balance: Utilitarianism and Animal Research. In Jeremy Garrett (ed.), The Ethics of Animal Research: Exploring the Controversy. MIT Press
H. J. McCloskey (1979). Moral Rights and Animals. Inquiry 22 (1-4):23 – 54.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads2 ( #678,391 of 1,793,282 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?