Animals 9 (12):1-14 (2019)

Authors
Jeroen Hopster
Utrecht University
Abstract
This article identifies empirical, conceptual and normative avenues to advance the speciesism debate. First, I highlight the application of Evolutionary Debunking Arguments (EDAs) as one such avenue: especially where (anti-)speciesist positions heavily rely on appeals to moral intuition, and EDAs have potential to move the debate forward. Second, an avenue for conceptual progress is the delineation of speciesism from other views in its vicinity, specifically from the view that biological differences between species are sometimes morally relevant (‘species-relativism’). Third, if we adopt Singer’s definition of speciesism, then a limitation of the current debate is that it is not obvious whether the core ethical principle that underlies anti-speciesist positions—the Principle of Equal Consideration of Interests—is widely applicable. Arguably, the interests of animals are often too dissimilar to establish what equal consideration amounts to. I underscore the need for integrating philosophical and empirical research, to come to terms with the extent to which the interests of members of different species are alike, and with the question of whether any dissimilarities might be morally relevant.
Keywords speciesism   intuition   evolutionary debunking arguments   moral psychology   speciesrelativism   cumulative culture   Peter Singer   Shelly Kagan   Bernard Williams
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

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
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

Evolutionary Debunking Arguments.Guy Kahane - 2011 - Noûs 45 (1):103-125.
Philosophy as a Humanistic Discipline.Bernard Williams - 2006 - Princeton: Princeton University Press.
What's Wrong with Speciesism?Shelly Kagan - 2016 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 33 (1):1-21.
The Ethics of Respect for Nature.Paul W. Taylor - 1981 - Environmental Ethics 3 (3):197-218.

View all 12 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Why Speciesism is Wrong: A Response to Kagan.Peter Singer - 2016 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 33 (1):31-35.
What's Wrong with Speciesism?Shelly Kagan - 2016 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 33 (1):1-21.
Moral Psychology And Moral Intuition: A Pox On All Your Houses.Kelby Mason - 2011 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 89 (3):441-458.
What is Speciesism?Oscar Horta - 2010 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 23 (3):243-266.
Singer’s Notion of Speciesism: A Case for Animal Rights in Ejagham Culture.Lawrence Odey Ojong - 2019 - International Journal of Environmental Pollution and Environmental Modelling 2 (3):116-121.
A Sensible Speciesism?Christopher Grau - 2016 - Philosophical Inquiries 4 (1):49-70.
Special Relations, Special Obligations, and Speciesism.Eric X. Qi - 2016 - Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 7 (3):12-22.
Specifying Speciesism.R. Fjellstrom - 2002 - Environmental Values 11 (1):63-74.
Is Speciesism Wrong by Definition?François Jaquet - 2019 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 32 (3):447-458.
McMahan on Speciesism and Deprivation.Christopher Grau - 2015 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 53 (2):216-226.
Kagan on Speciesism and Modal Personism.Doran Smolkin - 2017 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 36 (1):73-92.
The Relevance of Speciesism to Life Sciences Practices.Roger Wertheimer - 2007 - Journal of Philosophical Research 32 (Supplement):27-38.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2019-12-09

Total views
143 ( #66,673 of 2,403,526 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
72 ( #9,693 of 2,403,526 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes