Animal moral psychologies

In John M. Doris & Manuel Vargas (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Moral Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press (forthcoming)

Authors
Susana Monsó
University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna
Kristin Andrews
York University
Abstract
Observations of animals engaging in apparently moral behavior have led academics and the public alike to ask whether morality is shared between humans and other animals. Some philosophers explicitly argue that morality is unique to humans, because moral agency requires capacities that are only demonstrated in our species. Other philosophers argue that some animals can participate in morality because they possess these capacities in a rudimentary form. Scientists have also joined the discussion, and their views are just as varied as the philosophers’. Some research programs examine whether animals countenance specific human norms, such as fairness. Other research programs investigate the cognitive and affective capacities thought to be necessary for morality. There are two sets of concerns that can be raised by these debates. They sometimes suffer from there being no agreed upon theory of morality and no clear account of whether there is a demarcation between moral and social behavior; that is, they lack a proper philosophical foundation. They also sometimes suffer from there being disagreement about the psychological capacities evident in animals. Of these two sets of concerns—the nature of the moral and the scope of psychological capacities—we aim to take on only the second. In this chapter we defend the claim that animals have three sets of capacities that, on some views, are taken as necessary and foundational for moral judgment and action. These are capacities of care, capacities of autonomy, and normative capacities. Care, we argue, is widely found among social animals. Autonomy and normativity are more recent topics of empirical investigation, so while there is less evidence of these capacities at this point in our developing scientific knowledge, the current data is strongly suggestive.
Keywords nonhuman animals  moral psychology  care  autonomy  normativity
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive
External links

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.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Morality Without Mindreading.Susana Monsó - 2017 - Mind and Language 32 (3):338-357.
Nonhuman Animals Are Morally Responsible.Asia Ferrin - 2019 - American Philosophical Quarterly 56 (2):135-154.
Evolving Notions of Nonhuman Personhood: Is Moral Standing Sufficient?Dorothy Riddle - 2014 - Journal of Evolution and Technology 24 (3):4-19.
Normative Practices of Other Animals.Sarah Vincent, Rebecca Ring & Kristin Andrews - 2018 - In Aaron Zimmerman, Karen Jones & Mark Timmons (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Moral Epistemology. New York: pp. 57-83.
Beastly Morality: Animals as Ethical Agents.Jonathan K. Crane (ed.) - 2015 - Cambridge University Press.
Animal Ethics in Context.Clare Palmer - 2010 - Columbia University Press.
What (If Anything) Do We Owe Wild Animals?Clare A. Palmer - 2013 - Between the Species 16 (1):4.
Learning Ethics From Our Relationships with Animals: Moral Imagination.Maurice Hamington - 2008 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 22 (2):177-188.
Capacities, Context and the Moral Status of Animals.Sherri Irvin - 2004 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 21 (1):61–76.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2019-07-15

Total views
71 ( #109,950 of 2,250,038 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
71 ( #8,001 of 2,250,038 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature