Philosophical Psychology 34 (1):1-27 (2021)

Susana Monsó
Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia
Birte Wrage
University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna
In this paper, we argue that scientists working on the animal morality debate have been operating with a narrow view of morality that prematurely limits the variety of moral practices that animals may be capable of. We show how this bias can be partially corrected by paying more attention to the touch behaviours of animals. We argue that a careful examination of the ways in which animals engage in and navigate touch interactions can shed new light on current debates on animal morality, like the study of consolation behaviour, while also revealing further forms that animal morality may take and that have been neglected so far, like capacities of tolerance or trust. This defence is structured as an analysis of the three main functions of touch: the discriminative function, the affiliative function, and the vigilance function.
Keywords nonhuman animals   animal morality   moral emotions   touch   affiliation   vulnerability
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2021
DOI 10.1080/09515089.2020.1859100
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

A Natural History of Human Morality.Michael Tomasello (ed.) - 2016 - Harvard University Press.
The Ethical Project.Philip Kitcher - 2011 - Harvard University Press.
Naïve Normativity: The Social Foundation of Moral Cognition.Kristin Andrews - 2020 - Journal of the American Philosophical Association 6 (1):36-56.

View all 25 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Caring animals and care ethics.Birte Wrage - 2022 - Biology and Philosophy 37 (3):1-20.
The Ethics of Touch and the Importance of Nonhuman Relationships in Animal Agriculture.Steve Cooke - 2021 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 34 (2):1-20.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Re-Framing the Debate Over Animal Morality.Simon Fitzpatrick - 2020 - EurSafe Newsletter 22 (1):3-6.
Animal Morality: What is the Debate About?Simon Fitzpatrick - 2017 - Biology and Philosophy 32 (6):1151-1183.
Beastly Morality: Animals as Ethical Agents.Jonathan K. Crane (ed.) - 2015 - Cambridge University Press.
Morality Without Mindreading.Susana Monsó - 2017 - Mind and Language 32 (3):338-357.
Learning Ethics From Our Relationships with Animals: Moral Imagination.Maurice Hamington - 2008 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 22 (2):177-188.
Animal Moral Psychologies.Susana Monsó & Kristin Andrews - forthcoming - In John M. Doris & Manuel Vargas (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Moral Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Morality, Adapted.Benjamin Sachs - 2010 - Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 53 (4):624-629.


Added to PP index

Total views
302 ( #35,044 of 2,507,013 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
46 ( #18,913 of 2,507,013 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes