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 10 (1):1-23 (1997)
Biotechnology applied to traditional foodanimals raises ethical issues in three distinctcategories. First are a series of issues that arise inthe transformation of pigs, sheep, cattle and otherdomesticated farm animals for purposes that deviatesubstantially from food production, including forxenotransplantation or production of pharmaceuticals.Ethical analysis of these issues must draw upon theresources of medical ethics; categorizing them asagricultural biotechnologies is misleading. The secondseries of issues relate to animal welfare. Althoughone can stipulate a number of different philosophicalfoundations for the ethical assessment of welfare,most either converge on Bernard Rollins principle ofwelfare conservation (Rollin, 1995), or devolve intodebates over the ethical significance of animaltelos or species integrity. The principle of welfareconservation prohibits disfunctional geneticengineering of food animals, but would permit alteringanimals biological functions, especially when (as inmaking animals less susceptable to pain or suffering)do so improves an individual animals well being.Objections to precisely this last form of geneticengineering stress telos or species integrity asconstraints on modification of animals, and thisrepresents the third class of ethical issues. Most whohave formulated such arguments have failed to developcoherent positions, but the notion of species being,derived from the 19th century German tradition,presents a promising way to analyze the basis forresisting the transformation of animal natures.
|Keywords||Philosophy Ethics Theory of Medicine/Bioethics Evolutionary Biology Plant Sciences Agricultural Economics|
|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
Paul B. Thompson (2008). The Opposite of Human Enhancement: Nanotechnology and the Blind Chicken Problem. [REVIEW] NanoEthics 2 (3):305-316.
Michael Greger (2011). Transgenesis in Animal Agriculture: Addressing Animal Health and Welfare Concerns. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 24 (5):451-472.
Arianna Ferrari (2012). Animal Disenhancement for Animal Welfare: The Apparent Philosophical Conundrums and the Real Exploitation of Animals. A Response to Thompson and Palmer. [REVIEW] NanoEthics 6 (1):65-76.
Similar books and articles
Kelly Oliver (2010). Animal Ethics: Toward an Ethics of Responsiveness. Research in Phenomenology 40 (2):267-280.
Mark H. Bernstein (2004). Without a Tear: Our Tragic Relationship with Animals. University of Illinois Press.
Robert Garner (2004). Animals, Politics, and Morality. Distributed Exclusively in the Usa by Palgrave.
Bernard E. Rollin (2006). Science and Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
H. Verhoog (1992). The Concept of Intrinsic Value and Transgenic Animals. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 5 (2):147-160.
Vonne Lund & I. Anna S. Olsson (2006). Animal Agriculture: Symbiosis, Culture, or Ethical Conflict? [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19 (1):47-56.
Terence J. Centner (2010). Limitations on the Confinement of Food Animals in the United States. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 23 (5):469-486.
Rob De Vries (2006). Genetic Engineering and the Integrity of Animals. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19 (5):469-493.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads41 ( #96,342 of 1,789,901 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #423,018 of 1,789,901 )
How can I increase my downloads?