Social norms and farm animal protection

Social change is slow and difficult. Social change for animals is formidably slow and difficult. Advocates and scholars alike have long tried to change attitudes and convince the public that eating animals is wrong. The topic of norms and social change for animals has been neglected, which explains in part the relative failure of the animal protection movement to secure robust support reflected in social and legal norms. Moreover, animal ethics has suffered from a disproportionate focus on individual attitudes and behavior at the expense of collective behavior, social change, and empirical psychology. If what we want to change is behavior on a large scale, norms are important tools. This article reviews an account of social norms that provides insights into the possibility and limitations of social change for animals, approaching animal protection as a problem of reverse social engineering. It highlights avenues for future work from this neglected perspective

Une théorie morale peut-elle être cognitivement trop exigeante?

Starting from the typical case of utilitarianism, I distinguish three ways a moral theory may be deemed (over-)demanding: practical, epistemic, and cognitive. I focus on the latter, whose specific nature has been overlooked. Taking animal ethics as a case study, I argue that knowledge of human cognition is critical to spelling out moral theories (including their implications) that are accessible and acceptable to the greatest number of agents. In a nutshell: knowing more about our cognitive apparatus with a view to play better with it. This meta-theoretical suggestion, however, differs from a classical objection drawn from the intuition that a given theory demands too much. //// A partir du cas typique de l’utilitarisme, je distingue trois façons dont une théorie morale pourrait être jugée (trop) exigeante : pratique, épistémique et cognitive. La spécificité de cette dernière – qui fait l’objet de cet article – a été négligée. Je soutiens, en prenant l’exemple de l’éthique animale, que la connaissance de la cognition humaine est essentielle à la formulation de théories morales (et de leurs implications) qui soient accessibles à, et acceptables par, le plus grand nombre d’agents possible. En d’autres termes : comment mieux connaître notre machine cognitive pour mieux jouer avec elle. Cette recommandation méta-théorique se distingue cependant d’une objection classique tirée de l’intuition selon laquelle une théorie exigerait trop de nous

Against moral intrinsicalism

This paper challenges a widespread, if tacit, assumption of animal ethics, namely, that the only properties of entities that matter to their moral status are intrinsic, cross‐specific properties—typically psychological capacities. According to moral individualism (Rachels 1990; McMahan 2002; 2005), the moral status of an individual, and how to treat him or her, should only be a function of his or her individual properties. I focus on the fundamental assumption of moral individualism, which I call intrinsicalism. On the challenged view, pigs, puppies and babies, insofar as they are intrinsically similar in morally relevant respects are equally deserving of having their interests satisfied (Norcross 2004). Moreover, relationships—merely agent-relative—are assumed to be irrelevant to moral status. I argue that, while some intrinsic properties are indeed fundamentally relevant, the principled exclusion of extrinsic properties (in virtue of extrinsicness) is unwarranted. From uncontroversial assumptions about supervenience, final value, and moral status, I argue for the relevance of extrinsic properties to moral status based on vulnerability and “reasonable partiality”, as illustrated by pet-keeping

Valuing humane lives in two-level utilitarianism

I examine the two-level utilitarian case for humane animal agriculture (by R. M. Hare and Gary Varner) and argue that it fails on its own terms. The case states that, at the ‘intuitive level’ of moral thinking, we can justify raising and killing animals for food, regarding them as replaceable, while treating them with respect. I show that two-level utilitarianism supports, instead, alternatives to animal agriculture. First, the case for humane animal agriculture does not follow from a commitment to two-level utilitarianism combined with a commitment to respecting animal lives. Secondly, the two-level utilitarian case falls prey to a compartmentalization problem and cannot uphold both respect and replaceability. What I call ‘humane lives’ are not appropriately valued by the lights of two-level utilitarianism itself

The meaning of killing

Why do we consider killing and letting someone die to be two different things? Why do we believe that a doctor who refuses to treat a terminally ill patient is doing anything less than administering a lethal substance? After all, the consequences are the same, and perhaps the moral status of these acts should be judged accordingly. Reviewed: Jonathan Glover, Questions de vie ou de mort (Causing Death and Saving Lives), translated into French and introduced by Benoît Basse, Genève, Labor et Fides, 2017, 386 pp

Une théorie contextuelle du statut moral des animaux.

This work presents a contextual theory of the moral status of animals which combines the demands of impartiality and the significance of relationships of vulnerability and partiality. From an analysis of the notion of moral status as a set of obligations directly owed to animals, a two-fold theory is spelled out: a descriptive model and a normative model of moral status attribution, which are both "dual": moral status depends on both intrinsic and extrinsic properties of morally considerable entities (typically, capacities on the one hand, relationships and context on the other hand). The normative model is built around two core principles : a Principle of Protection of the Vulnerable and a Principle of Reasonable Partiality, which are both impartially justified. The theory thus combines the relational and particularistic demands of care ethics and the impartial demands of justice. Special relationships make some companion animals irreplaceable and endowed with a special status. However, a great deal of animals who are conscious but not self-conscious, and who do not take part in such relationships, are nevertheless irreplaceable insofar as they have a life of their own to live, whose narrativity can be outlined by humans.Ce travail développe une théorie contextuelle du statut moral des animaux qui concilie les exigences morales de l'impartialité et l'importance des relations de vulnérabilité et de partialité. A partir d'une analyse de la notion de statut moral comme ensemble d'obligations directement dues aux animaux, la théorie se décline en deux volets principaux: un modèle descriptif et un modèle normatif d'attribution du statut moral, tous deux . « duels» : le statut moral dépend de propriétés intrinsèques (typiquement des capacités) et de propriétés extrin-sèques (typiquement des relations et un contexte) des entités moralement considérables. Le modèle normatif s'organise autour de deux grands principes : un Principe de Protection des Vulnérables et un Principe de Partialité Raisonnable, tous deux justifiés impartialement, conciliant ainsi l'exigence relationnelle et particulariste des éthiques du care et l'exigence d'impartialité de la justice. Les relations spéciales rendent certains animaux familiers irremplaçables et dotés d'un statut moral spécial. Cependant, un grand nombre d'animaux conscients mais non nécessairement conscients d'eux-mêmes et qui en outre ne participent pas à de telles relations sont également irremplaçables dans la mesure où ils ont une vie propre à mener, dont les humains peuvent retracer la narrativité

Le problème de la souffrance chez Nietzsche et Parfit

Dans On What Matters Parfit défénd un objectivisme moral sur lequel il espère que les philosophes finiront par converger. Au cœur de cet espoir sont des vérités normatives irréductibles telles que l’affirmation que la souffrance est intrinsèquement mauvaise. Parfit se demande si Nietzsche menace son édifice et lui consacre un chapitre entier chapeautant la discussion du désaccord moral et de la convergence, et conclut que Nietzsche soit n’est pas en vrai désaccord, soit ne raisonne pas dans des conditions satisfaisantes. Je mets ici à l’épreuve la prédiction de convergence de Parfit et montre que Nietzsche pose une menace encore plus sérieuse que ne le prétend Parfit. Je montre que l’idée que la souffrance peut être bonne est intelligible, cohérente et plus complexe que la lecture de Parfit ne le révèle