Confining ‘Disenhanced’ Animals

NanoEthics 6 (1):41-46 (2012)
  Copy   BIBTEX


Abstract   Drawing upon evolutionary theory and the work of Daniel Dennett and Nicholas Agar, I offer an argument for broadening discussion of the ethics of disenhancement beyond animal welfare concerns to a consideration of animal “biopreferences”. Short of rendering animals completely unconscious or decerebrate, it is reasonable to suggest that disenhanced animals will continue to have some preferences. To the extent that these preferences can be understood as what Agar refers to as “plausible naturalizations” for familiar moral concepts like beliefs and desires, then they can make moral claims on us and provide support for intuitive opposition to disenhancement. Content Type Journal Article Category Original Paper Pages 1-6 DOI 10.1007/s11569-012-0142-6 Authors John Hadley, School of Humanities and Communication Arts, University of Western Sydney, 7.G.10b, Bankstown Campus, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith, NSW 2751, Australia Journal NanoEthics Online ISSN 1871-4765 Print ISSN 1871-4757



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 77,916

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

A “Practical” Ethic for Animals.David Fraser - 2011 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25 (5):721-746.
Animal Ethics: Toward an Ethics of Responsiveness.Kelly Oliver - 2010 - Research in Phenomenology 40 (2):267-280.
Animals and Sociology.Kay Peggs - 2012 - Palgrave-Macmillan.


Added to PP

41 (#291,649)

6 months
1 (#484,487)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?