Skip to main content
Log in

Critical Anthropomorphism and Animal Ethics

  • Articles
  • Published:
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Anthropomorphism has long been considered a cardinal error when describing animals. Ethicists have feared the consequences of misrepresenting animals in their reasoning. Recent research within human-animal studies, however, has sophisticated the notion of anthropomorphism. It is suggested that avoiding anthropomorphism merely creates other morphisms, such as mechanomorphism. Instead of avoiding anthropomorphism, it is argued that it is a communicative strategy that should be used critically. Instances of anthropomorphism in animal ethics are analyzed in this paper. Some analogies made between people and non-human animals in present theories of animal ethics are clear instances of psychological anthropomorphism. Other analogies are implicit cases of cultural anthropomorphism. It is argued that animal ethics needs to take the wider discourse of critical anthropomorphism into account in order to sophisticate the understanding and use of anthropomorphic projections. Anthropomorphism is an efficient tool of communication, and it may be made an adequate one as well.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andrews, K. (2009). Politics and metaphysics? On attributing psychological properties to animals. Biology and Philosophy, 24, 51–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asquith, P. J. (2010). Of bonds and boundaries. American Journal of Primatology, 71, 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burghardt, G. M. (1991). Cognitive ethology and critical anthropomorphism: A snake with two heads and hognose snakes that play dead. In C. A. Ristau (Ed.), Cognitive ethology: the minds of other animals: essays in honor of Donald R. Griffin. Hillsdale: L. Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crist, E. (1999). Images of animals. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daston, L., & Mitman, G. (Eds.). (2005). Thinking with animals. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Waal, F. (2000). Anthropomorphism and anthropodenial. Philosophical Topics, 27, 255–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliot, N. L. (2001). Signs of anthropomorphism. Social Semiotics, 11, 289–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Everndon, N. (1992). The social creation of nature. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, J. (1991). Disambiguating anthropomorphism: An interdisciplinary study. In P. P. G. Bateson & P. H. Klopfer (Eds.), Perspectives in ethology (Vol. 9). New York: Plenum Publishing Cooperation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ganetz, H. (2004). Familiar beasts. Nordicom Review, 1–2, 197–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. (1989). Primate visions. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hume, D. (1957). The natural history of religion. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karlsson, F. (2009). Weighing animal lives. In Uppsala, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Uppsala Studies in Social Ethics 38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, J. S. (1992). The new anthropomorphism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mameli, M., & Bortolotti, L. (2006). Animal rights, animal minds, and human mind-reading. Journal of Medical Ethics, 32, 84–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGrew, W. C. (1992). Chimpanzee material culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Midgley, M. (2002). Beast and man. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mill, J. S. (1872). Examination of Sir William Hamilton’s philosophy, 4th ed. London: Longmans.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, S. D. (2005). Anthropomorphism and cross-species modeling. In L. Daston & G. Mitman (Eds.), Thinking with animals. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morton, D. B., Burghardt, G. M., & Smith, J. A. (1990) Section III. Critical anthropocentrism, animal suffering, and the ecological context. The Hastings Center Report 20:3(S), 13–19.

  • Napolitano, F., De Rosa, G., Braghieri, A., Grasso, F., Bordi, A., & Wemelsfelder, F. (2008). The qualitative assessment of responsiveness to environmental challenge in horses and ponies. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 109, 342–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M. C. (2006). Frontiers of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regan, T. (1985). The case for animal rights. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rollin, B. E. (1997). Anecdote, anthropomorphism, and animal behavior. In N. S. Thompson, H. L. Miles, & R. W. Mitchell (Eds.), Anthropomorphism, Anecdotes, and Animals. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruether, R. R. (1983). Sexism and God-talk. London: SCM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schönfeld, M. (2006). Animal consciousness. Perspectives on Science, 14, 354–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, P. (1975). Animal liberation. New York: New York Review Book.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, P. (1979). Practical ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sober, E. (2005). Comparative psychology meets evolutionary biology. In L. Daston & G. Mitman (Eds.), Thinking with animals. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, P. W. (1996). Respect for nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waytz, A., Cacioppo, J., & Epley, N. (2010). Who sees human? The stability and importance of individual differences in anthropomorphism. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 219–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wemelsfelder, F., Hunter, T. E. A., Mendl, M. T., & Lawrence, A. B. (2000). The spontaneous qualitative assessment of behavioural expression in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 67, 193–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fredrik Karlsson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Karlsson, F. Critical Anthropomorphism and Animal Ethics. J Agric Environ Ethics 25, 707–720 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-011-9349-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-011-9349-8

Keywords

Navigation