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 24 (5):431-450 (2011)
Debates in animal ethics are largely characterized by ethical monism, the search for a single, timeless, and essential trait in which the moral standing of animals can be grounded. In this paper, we argue that a monistic approach towards animal ethics hampers and oversimplifies the moral debate. The value pluralism present in our contemporary societies requires a more open and flexible approach to moral inquiry. This paper advocates the turn to a pragmatic, pluralistic approach to animal ethics. It contributes to the development of such an approach in two ways. It offers a pragmatist critique of ethical monism in animal ethics and presents the results of a qualitative study into the value diversity present in the different ways of thinking about animals in the Netherlands. Carefully arranged group discussions resulted in the reconstruction of four distinctive moral value frameworks that may serve as instruments in the future process of moral inquiry and deliberation in the reflection on animal use
|Keywords||Animal ethics Pragmatism Value pluralism Frame reflection Moral deliberation|
|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
Thomas Nagel (1979). Mortal Questions. Cambridge University Press.
Bernard Arthur Owen Williams (1981). Moral Luck: Philosophical Papers, 1973-1980. Cambridge University Press.
Tom Regan (2009). The Case for Animal Rights. In Steven M. Cahn (ed.), Noûs. Oxford University Press 425-434.
Peter Singer (ed.) (1990). Animal Liberation. Avon Books.
John Dewey (1948). Reconstruction in Philosophy. Dover Publications.
Citations of this work BETA
Marianne Benard & Tjard de Cock Buning (2013). Exploring the Potential of Dutch Pig Farmers and Urban-Citizens to Learn Through Frame Reflection. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 26 (5):1015-1036.
Marianne Benard, Tjerk Jan Schuitmaker & Tjard de Cock Buning (2014). Scientists and Dutch Pig Farmers in Dialogue About Tail Biting: Unravelling the Mechanism of Multi-Stakeholder Learning. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 27 (3):431-452.
Similar books and articles
Kelly Oliver (2010). Animal Ethics: Toward an Ethics of Responsiveness. Research in Phenomenology 40 (2):267-280.
Sandra F. Watt, Utilitarianism and Buddist Ethics: A Comparative Approach to the Ethics of Animal Research.
David DeGrazia (1996). Taking Animals Seriously: Mental Life and Moral Status. Cambridge University Press.
Claire Molloy (2011). Popular Media and Animals. Palgrave Macmillan.
Rosemary Rodd (1990). Biology, Ethics, and Animals. Oxford University Press.
Uriah Kriegel (2013). Animal Rights: A Non‐Consequentialist Approach. In K. Petrus & M. Wild (eds.), Animal Minds and Animal Ethics. Transcript
Mark Rowlands (2009). Animal Rights: Moral Theory and Practice. Palgrave Macmillan.
Rosalind Hursthouse (2000). Ethics, Humans, and Other Animals: An Introduction with Readings. Routledge.
Kirsten Schmidt (2011). Concepts of Animal Welfare in Relation to Positions in Animal Ethics. Acta Biotheoretica 59 (2):153-171.
Elisa Aaltola (2008). Personhood and Animals. Environmental Ethics 30 (2):175-193.
Added to index2010-06-09
Total downloads32 ( #123,699 of 1,902,164 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #466,345 of 1,902,164 )
How can I increase my downloads?