28 research outputs found

    Consequentialism and Nonhuman Animals

    Get PDF
    Consequentialism is thought to be in significant conflict with animal rights theory because it does not regard activities such as confinement, killing, and exploitation as in principle morally wrong. Proponents of the “Logic of the Larder” argue that consequentialism results in an implausibly pro-exploitation stance, permitting us to eat farmed animals with positive well- being to ensure future such animals exist. Proponents of the “Logic of the Logger” argue that consequentialism results in an implausibly anti-conservationist stance, permitting us to exterminate wild animals with negative well-being to ensure future such animals do not exist. We argue that this conflict is overstated. Once we have properly accounted for indirect effects, such as the role that our policies play in shaping moral attitudes and behavior and the importance of accepting policies that are robust against deviation, we can see that consequentialism may converge with animal rights theory significantly, even if not entirely

    Fish are smart and feel pain: What about joy?

    Get PDF
    Sneddon et al. rightly point out that the evidence of fish pain is now so strong and comprehensive that arguments against it have become increasingly difficult to defend in balanced academic discourse. But sentience involves more than just pain. Recent research indicates that fish have an impressive range of cognitive capacities, including the capacity for pleasure, in the form of play and other behaviors likely to involve positively valenced experience. Having made the case for pain, research can now focus on other aspects of fish sentience. Doing so will not only provide a more complete picture of the mental lives and abilities of fish, but it will also promote their welfare and protection

    Fish are smart and feel pain: What about joy?

    Get PDF
    Sneddon et al. rightly point out that the evidence of fish pain is now so strong and comprehensive that arguments against it have become increasingly difficult to defend in balanced academic discourse. But sentience involves more than just pain. Recent research indicates that fish have an impressive range of cognitive capacities, including the capacity for pleasure, in the form of play and other behaviors likely to involve positively valenced experience. Having made the case for pain, research can now focus on other aspects of fish sentience. Doing so will not only provide a more complete picture of the mental lives and abilities of fish, but it will also promote their welfare and protection

    Fill-in-the-blank-emotion in dogs? Evidence from brain imaging

    Get PDF
    What is needed to make meaningful claims about an animal’s capacity for subjective experience? Cook et al. (2018) attempt to study jealousy in dogs by placing them in a particular context and then seeing whether they display a particular brain state. We argue that this approach to studying jealousy falls short for two related reasons. First, the relationship between jealousy and the selected context is unclear. Second, the relationship between jealousy and the selected brain state (indeed, any single brain state) is unclear. These and other issues seriously limit what this study can show. It is important not to see this study as showing more than it does

    Necessary Conditions for Morally Responsible Animal Research

    Get PDF
    Abstract:In this article, we present three necessary conditions for morally responsible animal research that we believe people on both sides of this debate can accept. Specifically, we argue that, even if human beings have higher moral status than nonhuman animals, animal research is morally permissible only if it satisfies (1) an expectation of sufficient net benefit, (2) a worthwhile-life condition, and (3) a no-unnecessary-harm/qualified-basic-needs condition. We then claim that, whether or not these necessary conditions are jointly sufficient for justified animal research, they are relatively demanding, with the consequence that many animal experiments may fail to satisfy them.</jats:p

    Can Knowledge Itself Justify Harmful Research?

    Get PDF

    Chimpanzee Rights: The Philosophers' Brief

    Get PDF
    In December 2013, the Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP) filed a petition for a common law writ of habeas corpus in the New York State Supreme Court on behalf of Tommy, a chimpanzee living alone in a cage in a shed in rural New York (Barlow, 2017). Under animal welfare laws, Tommy’s owners, the Laverys, were doing nothing illegal by keeping him in those conditions. Nonetheless, the NhRP argued that given the cognitive, social, and emotional capacities of chimpanzees, Tommy’s confinement constituted a profound wrong that demanded remedy by the courts. Soon thereafter, the NhRP filed habeas corpus petitions on behalf of Kiko, another chimpanzee housed alone in Niagara Falls, and Hercules and Leo, two chimpanzees held in research facilities at Stony Brook University. Thus began the legal struggle to move these chimpanzees from captivity to a sanctuary, an effort that has led the NhRP to argue in multiple courts before multiple judges. The central point of contention has been whether Tommy, Kiko, Hercules, and Leo have legal rights. To date, no judge has been willing to issue a writ of habeas corpus on their behalf. Such a ruling would mean that these chimpanzees have rights that confinement might violate. Instead, the judges have argued that chimpanzees cannot be bearers of legal rights because they are not, and cannot be persons. In this book we argue that chimpanzees are persons because they are autonomous

    Climate change, public health, and animal welfare: towards a One Health approach to reducing animal agriculture’s climate footprint

    Get PDF
    Animal agriculture contributes significantly to global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions—an estimated 12%-20% of total anthropogenic emissions. This has led both governmental and private actors to propose various ways to mitigate those climate impacts. This paper applies a One Health lens to the issue, arguing that the choice of solutions should not only consider the potential to reduce GHG emissions—which is not always a given—but also the implications for public health and animal welfare. With this perspective, we examine the potential public health and animal welfare impacts of three types of strategies that are often proposed: (1) “sustainable intensification” methods, aimed at maintaining or increasing production while limiting emissions and avoiding further land conversion; (2) “species shift” approaches, which focus on changing diets to consume meat from animals produced with lower GHG emissions instead of that of animals associated with higher emissions; and (3) “systemic dietary change” approaches that promote shifts towards whole plant-based foods or novel alternatives to conventional animal products. We discuss how some approaches—particularly those associated with sustainable intensification and species shift—could introduce new and significant risks to public health and animal welfare. Promoting systemic dietary change helps to overcome some of these challenges, but requires careful attention to equity to ensure that vulnerable populations still have access to the nutrients they need. We end with recommendations for a more holistic approach to reducing emissions from farmed animals that can help avoid trade-offs and increase synergies with other societal goals
    corecore