Some nonhuman animals can have pains in a morally relevant sense

Biology and Philosophy 12 (1):51-71 (1997)
Abstract
In a series of works, Peter Carruthers has argued for the denial of the title proposition. Here, I defend that proposition by offering direct support drawn from relevant sciences and by undercutting Carruthers argument. In doing the latter, I distinguish an intrinsic theory of consciousness from Carruthers relational theory of consciousness. This relational theory has two readings, one of which makes essential appeal to evolutionary theory. I argue that neither reading offers a successful view.
Keywords Animal  Consciousness  Ethics  Pain  Carruthers, P
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1023/A:1017933132500
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 30,122
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Minding Mammals.Adam Shriver - 2006 - Philosophical Psychology 19 (4):433-442.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total downloads
47 ( #113,849 of 2,191,301 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #291,146 of 2,191,301 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature