David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 22 (6) (2009)
European animal disease policy seems to find its justification in a “harm to other” principle. Limiting the freedom of animal keepers—e.g., by culling their animals—is justified by the aim to prevent harm, i.e., the spreading of the disease. The picture, however, is more complicated. Both during the control of outbreaks and in the prevention of notifiable, animal diseases the government is confronted with conflicting claims of stakeholders who anticipate running a risk to be harmed by each other, and who ask for government intervention. In this paper, we first argue that in a policy that aims to prevent animal diseases, the focus shifts from limiting “harm” to weighing conflicting claims with respect to “risks of harm.” Therefore, we claim that the harm principle is no longer a sufficient justification for governmental intervention in animal disease prevention. A policy that has to deal with and distribute conflicting risks of harm needs additional value assumptions that guide this process of assessment and distribution. We show that currently, policies are based on assumptions that are mainly economic considerations. In order to show the limitations of these considerations, we use the interests and position of keepers of backyard animals as an example. Based on the problems they faced during and after the recent outbreaks, we defend the thesis that in order to develop a sustainable animal disease policy other than economic assumptions need to be taken into account.
|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
Nils Holtug (2002). The Harm Principle. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 5 (4):357-389.
André Krom (2011). The Harm Principle as a Mid-Level Principle? Three Problems From the Context of Infectious Disease Control. Bioethics 25 (8):437-444.
Nina E. Cohen, Frans W. A. Brom & Elsbeth N. Stassen (2009). Fundamental Moral Attitudes to Animals and Their Role in Judgment: An Empirical Model to Describe Fundamental Moral Attitudes to Animals and Their Role in Judgment on the Culling of Healthy Animals During an Animal Disease Epidemic. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 22 (4):341-359.
E. Cohen Nina, W. A. Brom Frans & N. Stassen Elsbeth (2009). Fundamental Moral Attitudes to Animals and Their Role in Judgment: An Empirical Model to Describe Fundamental Moral Attitudes to Animals and Their Role in Judgment on the Culling of Healthy Animals During an Animal Disease Epidemic. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 22 (4).
Hon-Lam Li (2002). Animal Research, Non-Vegetarianism, and the Moral Status of Animals - Understanding the Impasse of the Animal Rights Problem. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 27 (5):589 – 615.
Steve Cooke (2011). Duties to Companion Animals. Res Publica 17 (3):261-274.
Gavrell Ortiz & Sara Elizabeth (2004). Beyond Welfare: Animal Integrity, Animal Dignity, and Genetic Engineering. Ethics and the Environment 9 (1):94-120.
Rebecca Dresser (1988). Standards for Animal Research: Looking at the Middle. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 13 (2):123-143.
Johan Evers, Stefan Aerts & Johan De Tavernier (2008). An Ethical Argument in Favor of Nano-Enabled Diagnostics in Livestock Disease Control. NanoEthics 2 (2):163-178.
Matthew C. Halteman (2011). Varieties of Harm to Animals in Industrial Farming. Journal of Animal Ethics 1 (2):122-131.
Added to index2009-06-01
Total downloads15 ( #238,161 of 1,796,258 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #468,795 of 1,796,258 )
How can I increase my downloads?