Scientific advances and moral inertia

Marino shows that chickens are as complex mentally as other birds and mammals. Yet common perceptions of chickens are slow to change in response to the science. Human capacities for willful ignorance, inattention, and avoidance keep us from learning about the animals we harm, and the inertia of habit and tradition keeps us from taking appropriate action in response to what we learn. It’s essential for teachers and activists to find ways to overcome this inattention and inertia

Empathy, Animals, and Deadly Vices

In Deadly Vices, Gabriele Taylor provides a secular analysis of vices which in Christian theology were thought to bring death to the soul: sloth, envy, avarice, pride, anger, lust, and gluttony. She argues that these vices are appropriately singled out and grouped together in that ‘they are destructive of the self and prevent its flourishing’. Using a related approach, I offer a secular analysis of gluttony and cowardice, examining their roles in common failures to empathise with animals. I argue that these vices constitute serious moral failings, for they enable continuing complicity in animal abuse and undermine integrity. While Taylor aims to show that ‘deadly vices’ are destructive of the self, I argue that they are ultimately deadly to other animals. I offer practical suggestions for overcoming them by cultivating agentic courage and better empathy with animals

Empathy and Moral Laziness

In The Empathy Exams Leslie Jamison offers an unusual perspective: ‘Empathy isn’t just something that happens to us – a meteor shower of synapses firing across the brain – it’s also a choice we make: to pay attention, to extend ourselves. It’s made of exertion, that dowdier cousin of impulse’ (23). This essay is dedicated to elaborating that crucial observation. A vast amount of recent research concerns empathy – in evolutionary biology, neurobiology, moral psychology, and ethics. I want to extend these investigations by exploring the degree to which individuals can control our empathy: for whom and what we feel it, to what degree, in what circumstances, and with what practical results. My inquiry is aimed toward showing that humans can find ways to empathize with non-human animals – a capacity that is manifest in our relations with animal companions, but more rarely exercised when we consider animal victims of human exploitation. I introduce the notion of moral laziness: aversion to and avoidance of moral efforts and exertion. The foundation of this failing is often empathic laziness: aversion to imagining the mental states of others, feeling congruent emotions, and experiencing the impulse to help that empathy arouses. This is a serious moral failing because it enables continuing complicity in animal abuse and undermines integrity. Jamison remarks in relation to empathy, ‘I believe in intention and I believe in work. I believe in waking up in the middle of the night and packing our bags and leaving our worst selves for our better ones’ (23-24). I offer practical suggestions for that work

Scientific advances and moral inertia

Marino shows that chickens are as complex mentally as other birds and mammals. Yet common perceptions of chickens are slow to change in response to the science. Human capacities for willful ignorance, inattention, and avoidance keep us from learning about the animals we harm, and the inertia of habit and tradition keeps us from taking appropriate action in response to what we learn. It’s essential for teachers and activists to find ways to overcome this inattention and inertia

Taking Animals Seriously: Ethics in Action

No abstract availablehttps://inspire.redlands.edu/oh_chapters/1005/thumbnail.jp

Human–animal relations beyond the zoo : the quest for a more inclusive sustainability education

This paper investigates human–animal relations in sustainability education. To understand what educational relationships and boundaries are challenged and/or strengthened in education promoting future sustainable societies, we argue that educational theory and practice must move beyond the anthropocentric framework’s sole focus on relationships between humans. Drawing on focus group interviews with teacher instructors at eight Swedish universities, we discuss cases in which sustainability education benefits from being understood as crafted via human–nonhuman relations. By concentrating on human–animal relations, we discuss the political and ethical implications arising from relationships being created in certain ways and not others. The empirical examples illustrate how the relations between teacher instructors and various animals can be a critical starting point for understanding the limitations and possibilities fostered by sustainability education