The Moral Status of Animals: Degrees of Moral Status and the Interest-Based Approach

Zorana S. Todorović

doi:10.2298/FID2102282T

Authors

Zorana S. Todorović Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.2298/FID2102282T

Keywords:

animal, sentient, moral, status, well-being, interest, human, person

Abstract

This paper addresses the issue of the moral status of non-human animals, or the question whether sentient animals are morally considerable. The arguments for and against the moral status of animals are discussed, above all the argument from marginal cases. It is argued that sentient animals have moral status based on their having interests in their experiential well-being, but that there are degrees of moral status. Two interest-based approaches are presented and discussed: DeGrazia’s view that sentient animals have interests in continuing to live, and that their interests should be granted moral weight; and McMahan’s TRIA which similarly postulates that animals have interests and that in a given situation we should compare the human and animal interests at stake. Finally, the paper concludes that the anthropocentric approach to animal ethics should be abandoned in favour of the biocentric ethics.

References

Cavalieri, Paola; Singer, Peter (1993), “The Great Ape Project – and Beyond”, in Cavalieri, Paola and Peter Singer (eds.), The great ape project: Equality beyond humanity, New York: St. Martin’s Griffin.

Darwin, Charles (1871/1981), The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

DeGrazia, David (1996), Taking Animals Seriously: Mental Life and Moral Status, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

—. (2008), “Moral Status As a Matter of Degree?”, The Southern Journal of Philosophy XLVI: 181–198.

—. (2016), “Sentient Nonpersons and the Disvalue of Death”, Bioethics. 30 (7): 511–519.

Harman, Elizabeth (2003), “The Potentiality Problem”, Philosophical Studies 114 (1): 173–198.

McMahan, Jeff (1996), “Cognitive Disability, Misfortune, and Justice”, Philosophy and Public Affairs 25 (1): 3–35.

—. (2002), The Ethics of Killing: Problems at the Margins of Life, New York: Oxford University Press.

—. (2008), “Eating Animals the Nice Way”, Daedalus 137(1): 66–76.

—. (2016), “The Comparative Badness for Animals of Suffering and Death”, in Tatjana Višak, Robert Garner (eds.), The Ethics of Killing Animals, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Panksepp, Jaak (2011), “Cross-Species Affective Neuroscience Decoding of the Primal Affective Experiences of Humans and Related Animals”, PLoS ONE 6 (9): e21236.

Scruton, Roger (2000), Animal Rights and Wrongs, London: Demos.

Singer, Peter (1975), Animal Liberation, New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc.STUDIES AND ARTICLES │ 295.

Stratostinetskaya, Anna, “Colorado Beef Ranch Turns into Vegan Animal Sanctuary”, VegNews.com, available at: https://vegnews.com/2017/9/colorado-beef-ranch turns-into-vegan-animal-sanctuary (19 September 2017).

Sumner, L. Wayne (1995), “The Subjectivity of Welfare”, Ethics 105 (4): 764–790.

Tanner, Julia (2006), “Marginal Humans, the Argument from Kinds and the Similarity Argument”, Facta Universitatis Series: Philosophy, Sociology and Psychology 5 (1): 47–63.

Višak, Tatjana; Garner, Robert (eds.) (2016), The Ethics of Killing Animals, Oxford: Oxford University Press.