Animal Welfare 21:157-166 (2012)
AbstractIt is frequently claimed that breeding animals that we know will have unavoidable health problems is at least prima facie wrong, because it harms the animals concerned. However, if we take ‘harm’ to mean ‘makes worse off’, this claim appears false. Breeding an animal that will have unavoidable health problems does not make any particular individual animal worse off, since an animal bred without such problems would be a different individual animal. Yet, the intuition that there is something ethically wrong about breeding animals—such as purebred pedigree dogs—in ways that seem negatively to affect welfare remains powerful. In this paper, an animal version of what is sometimes called the non-identity problem is explored, along with a number of possible ways of understanding what might be wrong with such breeding practices, if it is not that they harm the animal itself. These possibilities include harms to others, placeholder arguments, non-comparative ideas of harm, an ‘impersonal’ approach, and concerns about human attitudes and dispositions
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
References found in this work
Reasons and Persons.Joseph Margolis - 1986 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 47 (2):311-327.
Can We Harm and Benefit in Creating?Elizabeth Harman - 2004 - Philosophical Perspectives 18 (1):89–113.
Citations of this work
Companion Animal Ethics: A Special Area of Moral Theory and Practice?James Yeates & Julian Savulescu - 2017 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 20 (2):347-359.
Non-Identity for Non-Humans.Duncan Purves & Benjamin Hale - 2016 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 19 (5):1165-1185.
The Pedigree Dog Breeding Debate in Ethics and Practice: Beyond Welfare Arguments.Bernice Bovenkerk & Hanneke J. Nijland - 2017 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 30 (3):387-412.
Similar books and articles
Why We Should Stop Creating Pets with Lives Worth Living.Chelsea Haramia - 2015 - Between the Species 18 (1).
Taking Ethics Into Account in Farm Animal Breeding: What Can the Breeding Companies Achieve? [REVIEW]I. Anna S. Olsson, Christian Gamborg & Peter Sandøe - 2005 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19 (1):37-46.
Did Mendelism Transform Plant Breeding? Genetic Theory and Breeding Practice, 1900–1945.Jonathan Harwood - 2015 - In Sharon Kingsland & Denise Phillips (eds.), New Perspectives on the History of Life Sciences and Agriculture. Springer Verlag.
The Moral Status of Enabling Harm.Samuel C. Rickless - 2011 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 92 (1):66-86.
Scientific Theory and Agricultural Practice: Plant Breeding in Germany From the Late 19th to the Early 20th Century. [REVIEW]Thomas Wieland - 2006 - Journal of the History of Biology 39 (2):309 - 343.
"Did the Bills Harm Tom Brady?" - Overview of Temporal Comparative Account of Harm.Ryan Holt - 2015 - Http://Www.Freshphilosophy.Com/Journal.
Breeding for Nobility or for Production? Cultures of Dairy Cattle Breeding in the Netherlands, 1945–1995.Bert Theunissen - 2012 - Isis 103:278-309.
P. Eyzaguirre and M. Iwanaga (Eds.), Articipatory Plant Breeding: Proceedings of a Workshop on Participation in Plant Breeding, 26–29 July 199. [REVIEW]Jonathan Robinson - 1999 - Agriculture and Human Values 16 (1):91-92.
Individual Differences in Age Preferences in Mates: Taking a Closer Look.Dorothy Einon - 1997 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (1):137-138.
How to Consider the Value of Farm Animals in Breeding Goals. A Review of Current Status and Future Challenges.H. M. Nielsen, I. Olesen, S. Navrud, K. Kolstad & P. Amer - 2011 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 24 (4):309-330.