David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Environmental Ethics 2 (2):99-120 (1980)
In this essay, I explore the moral foundations of the treatment of animals. Alternative views are critically examined, including (a) the Kantian account, which holds that our duties regarding animals are actually indirect duties to humanity; (b) the cruelty account, which holds that the idea of cruelty explains why it is wrong to treat animals in certain ways; and (c) the utilitarian account, which holds that the value of consequences for all sentient creatures explains our duties to animals. These views are shown to be inadequate, the Kantian account because some of our duties regarding animals are direct duties to animals; the cruelty account because it confuses matters of motive or intent with the question of the rightness or wrongness of the agent’s actions; and the utilitarian account because it could be used to justifyidentifiable speciesistic practices. I defend a fourth view. Only if we postulate basic moral rights in the case of humans, can we satisfactorily account for why it is wrong to treat humans in certain ways, and it is only by postulating that these humans have inherent value that we can attribute to them basic moral rights. Consistency requires that we attribute this same kind of value to many animals. Their havinginherent value provides a similar basis for attributing certain basic moral rights to them, including the right not to be harmed. Possession of this right places the onus of justification on anyone who would harm these animals. I set forth conditions for such a justification which those who would abuse animals have failed to meet
|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
Mason Cash (2008). Thoughts and Oughts. Philosophical Explorations 11 (2):93 – 119.
Cathryn Bailey (2005). On the Backs of Animals: The Valorization of Reason in Contemporary Animal Ethics. Ethics and the Environment 10 (1):1-17.
Joseph J. Tanke (2007). The Care of Self and Environmental Politics: Towards a Foucaultian Account of Dietary Practice. Ethics and the Environment 12 (1):79-96.
Similar books and articles
Mark Rowlands (2009). Animal Rights: Moral Theory and Practice. Palgrave Macmillan.
Donna Yarri (2005). The Ethics of Animal Experimentation: A Critical Analysis and Constructive Christian Proposal. OUP Usa.
Tom Regan (1979). An Examination and Defense of One Argument Concerning Animal Rights. Inquiry 22 (1-4):189 – 219.
Tom Regan (1997). The Rights of Humans and Other Animals. Ethics and Behavior 7 (2):103 – 111.
Tom L. Beauchamp (1997). Opposing Views on Animal Experimentation: Do Animals Have Rights? Ethics and Behavior 7 (2):113 – 121.
Steve Cooke (2011). Duties to Companion Animals. Res Publica 17 (3):261-274.
Lara Denis (2000). Kant's Conception of Duties Regarding Animals: Reconstruction and Reconsideration. History of Philosophy Quarterly 17 (4):405-23.
Aaron Simmons (2007). A Critique of Mary Anne Warren's Weak Animal Rights View. Environmental Ethics 29 (3):267-278.
Patrick Kain (2010). Duties Regarding Animals. In Lara Denis (ed.), Kant's Metaphysics of Morals: A Critical Guide. Cambridge University Press 210--233.
Robert Bass (2006). Undermining Indirect Duty Theories. Between the Species (6):1.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads75 ( #45,186 of 1,726,249 )
Recent downloads (6 months)14 ( #50,975 of 1,726,249 )
How can I increase my downloads?