David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Environmental Ethics 1 (2):99-129 (1979)
A reciprocity framework is presented as an analysis of morality, and to explain and justify the attribution of moral rights and duties. To say an entity has rights makes sense only if that entity can fulfill reciprocal duties, i.e., can act as a moral agent. To be a moral agent an entity must (1) be self-conscious, (2) understand general principles, (3) have free will, (4) understand the given principles, (5) be physicallycapable of acting, and (6) intend to act according to or against the given principles. This framework is foundational both to empirical and supernatural positions which distinguish a human milieu, which is moral, from a nonhuman milieu, which is not. It also provides a basis for evaluating four standard arguments for the rights ofnonhuman animals and nature-the ecological, the prudential, the sentimental, and the contractual. If reciprocity is taken as being central to the general concepts of rights and duties, then few animals, and no natural objects or natural systems, have rights and duties in an intrinsic or primary sense, although they may be assigned them in an extrinsic or secondary sense as a convenience in connection with human interests. Nevertheless, there are some animals besides humans - e.g., especially chimpanzees, gorillas, dolphins, and dogs - which, in accordance with good behavioral evidence, are moral entities, and sometimes moral agents. On the grounds of reciprocity, they merit, at aminimum, intrinsic or primary rights to life and to relief from unnecessary suffering
|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
David Sztybel (2006). Can the Treatment of Animals Be Compared to the Holocaust? Ethics and the Environment 11 (1):97-132.
Amy Mullin (2011). Children and the Argument From 'Marginal' Cases. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 14 (3):291-305.
Kathryn Paxton George (1992). Moral and Nonmoral Innate Constraints. Biology and Philosophy 7 (2):189-202.
Similar books and articles
Rachel Brown (2004). Righting Ecofeminist Ethics: The Scope and Use of Moral Entitlement. Environmental Ethics 26 (3):247-265.
Joel Marks (2010). Live Free or Die. [REVIEW] Animal Law 17 (1):243-250.
H. J. McCloskey (1979). Moral Rights and Animals. Inquiry 22 (1-4):23 – 54.
Tom L. Beauchamp (1999). The Failure of Theories of Personhood. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 9 (4):309-324.
Tom Regan (1980). Animal Rights, Human Wrongs. Environmental Ethics 2 (2):99-120.
Hugh V. McLachlan (2010). Moral Rights to Life, Both Natural and Non-Natural: Reflections on James Griffin's Account of Human Rights. Diametros 26:58-76.
Tom Regan (1997). The Rights of Humans and Other Animals. Ethics and Behavior 7 (2):103 – 111.
Aaron Simmons (2007). A Critique of Mary Anne Warren's Weak Animal Rights View. Environmental Ethics 29 (3):267-278.
Anthony J. Povilitis (1980). On Assigning Rights to Animals and Nature. Environmental Ethics 2 (1):67-71.
Paola Cavalieri (2001). The Animal Question: Why Nonhuman Animals Deserve Human Rights. Oxford University Press.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads21 ( #188,967 of 1,934,702 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #195,964 of 1,934,702 )
How can I increase my downloads?