Animal Ethics

DECEMBER 24, 2006

Mark Spahn, a longtime reader of my AnalPhilosopher blog, thinks it’s question-begging to use “who” (instead of “that”) to refer to animals. The question (presumably) is whether animals have moral status, i.e., whether the interests of animals must be taken into account in our deliberations. My usage reflects my belief.

Morals 40

Morals Animal Dogs Cats 40

Animal Ethics

AUGUST 30, 2007

It was the first lecture series of its kind in german speaking world organized by the members of the Interdisziplinäre Arbeitsgemeinschaft Tierethik (literally “Interdisciplinary Study Group on Animal Ethics”) – an initiative of students. The results of the lectures are written down in this book.

Germany 40

Germany Animal Ethics Switzerland Netherlands 40

Animal Ethics

DECEMBER 24, 2006

Example: A reference to "still undemocratic Iraq" makes the assertion that eventually Iraq will be democratic. Using the human-appropriate relative pronoun "who" to refer to an animal is a planted assertion that animals should be considered in the same way that humans are considered.

Iraq 40

Iraq Animal Ethics Ethics Humane 40

Animal Ethics

JANUARY 13, 2009

6): I was disappointed that you dignified the “harvest” (a classic euphemism) with high-tech bows and arrows of tule elk in California on the front page with references to the “sport” and compliance with “an ethical code known as Fair Chase.”

New York Times 40

New York Times New York Hunters Hunting 40

Animal Ethics

FEBRUARY 6, 2010

On the other hand, all the non-utilitarian principles which have been put forward turn out on inspection to have reference only to human beings. That the argument may appear cynical is no concern of the utilitarian, who is forced by his moral theory to admit the relevance of even the most cynical-seeming arguments. Philip E.

Vegetarian 40

Vegetarian Hamburgers Morals Meat 40

Animal Ethics

MARCH 23, 2009

An imagined society in which all animals capable of sensibility received equal consideration or held rights to equal consideration would be so ludicrous that it might be more appropriately and effectively treated in satire than in philosophical discussion.

Ethics 40

Ethics Animal Liberation Animal Rights Movement Morals 40

Animal Ethics

JANUARY 2, 2011

Animal pain will be bad in itself, apart from any consequence of that pain to human beings, but the badness of that pain will derive from a moral principle whose ultimate reference is to persons. Thus the ethics proposed here is anthropocentric (or person-centred) though only mildly so.

Morals 40

Morals Vegetarian Suffering Non Human 40