Ethics and the Environment 13 (1):pp. 41-69 (2008)
|Abstract||There is quite a long-standing tradition according to which the morally proper treatment of animals does not rely on what we owe them, but on our benevolence. Nussbaum wishes to go beyond this tradition, because in her view we are dealing with issues of justice. Her capabilities approach secures basic entitlements for animals, on the basis of their fundamental capacities. At the same time Nussbaum wishes to retain the possibility of certain human uses of animals, and to see them as morally justifiable. This article shows that these things do not go together with her capabilities approach to animal rights. More specifically, they clash with the attitude towards animals that Nussbaum's approach intends to foster in human beings.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Tony Fitzpatrick (2008). From Contracts to Capabilities and Back Again. Res Publica 14 (2):83-100.
Elizabeth Cripps (2010). Saving the Polar Bear, Saving the World: Can the Capabilities Approach Do Justice to Humans, Animals and Ecosystems? [REVIEW] Res Publica 16 (1):1-22.
Mark Rowlands (2009). Animal Rights: Moral Theory and Practice. Palgrave Macmillan.
Kelly Oliver (2010). Animal Ethics: Toward an Ethics of Responsiveness. Research in Phenomenology 40 (2):267-280.
Dale Dorsey (2008). Toward a Theory of the Basic Minimum. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 7 (4):423-445.
John M. Alexander (2005). Non-Reductionist Naturalism: Nussbaum Between Aristotle and Hume. Res Publica 11 (2):157-183.
H. J. McCloskey (1979). Moral Rights and Animals. Inquiry 22 (1-4):23 – 54.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads84 ( #10,980 of 722,832 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,541 of 722,832 )
How can I increase my downloads?