Abstract
The creation of transgenic animals by means of modern techniques of genetic manipulation is evaluated in the light of different interpretations of the concept of intrinsic value. The zoocentric interpretation, emphasizing the suffering of individual, sentient animals, is described as an extension of the anthropocentric interpretation. In a biocentric or ecocentric approach the concept of intrinsic value first of all denotes independence of humans and a non-instrumental relation to animals. In the zoocentric approach of Bernard Rollin, genetic engineering is seen as a morally neutral tool, as long as the animal does not suffer as a result of it. Robert Colwell who defends an ecocentric ethic, makes a sharp distinction between wild animals and domesticated animals. Genetic manipulation of wild species is a serious moral issue, in contrast to genetic manipulation of domesticated species which is no problem at all for Colwell. Both authors do not take the species-specific nature (or telos) of domesticated animals seriously. When domestication is seen as a process between the two poles of the wild animal and the human construct (which can be patented), the technique of genetic manipulation can only be seen as a further encroachment upon the intrinsic value of animals. At the level of molecular biology, the concept of an animal's telos loses its meaning.
Keywords Genetic manipulation  intrinsic value  zoocentric ethics  biocentric ethics  animal telos
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/BF01966357
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 71,290
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

Animal Liberation.Peter Singer (ed.) - 1977 - Avon Books.
The Case for Animal Rights.Tom Regan - 2009 - In Steven M. Cahn (ed.), Noûs. Oxford University Press. pp. 425-434.
The Case for Animal Rights.Tom Regan - 1983 - University of California Press, C1983.
Ethics.William K. Frankena - 1963 - Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall.
The Case for Animal Rights.Tom Regan & Mary Midgley - 1986 - The Personalist Forum 2 (1):67-71.

View all 16 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Ethics and the Genetic Engineering of Food Animals.Paul B. Thompson - 1997 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 10 (1):1-23.
A Plea to Implement Robustness Into a Breeding Goal: Poultry as an Example.L. Star, E. D. Ellen, K. Uitdehaag & F. W. A. Brom - 2008 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 21 (2):109-125.

View all 17 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Personhood and Animals.Elisa Aaltola - 2008 - Environmental Ethics 30 (2):175-193.
Genetic Engineering and the Integrity of Animals.Rob De Vries - 2006 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19 (5):469-493.
The Wild Animal as a Research Animal.Jac A. A. Swart - 2004 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 17 (2):181-197.
Live Free or Die. [REVIEW]Joel Marks - 2010 - Animal Law 17 (1):243-250.
The Moral Considerability of Invasive Transgenic Animals.Benjamin Hale - 2006 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19 (4):337-366.
Kant's Treatment of Animals.Holly L. Wilson - 2011 - In Paul Pojman (ed.), Food Ethics. Wadsworth.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
93 ( #127,032 of 2,518,759 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #271,822 of 2,518,759 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes