Interests, Intuition, and Moral Status.

Dissertation, Georgetown University (1989)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In this essay I attempt to shed some light on the moral status of animals and provide a framework for further illumination. I attempt in chapter one to determine the necessary and sufficient conditions for having moral status, which I tie to having interests. My conclusion is that the key characteristic is conation. ;In chapter two I distinguish the concepts of equal moral status and equal consideration of identical interests--which have not been clearly distinguished, leading to confusion. Moral status is the degree of moral resistance to having one's interests thwarted. Crucially, the principle of equal consideration --which I defend--is consistent with the thesis that differences in moral status exist. ;In chapter three I defend a moral methodology that employs both an intuitive method and a principle of maximizing interests. In doing so I attempt to refute various misconceptions regarding intuition. I then examine categories of judgments I call 'fixed intuitions' and 'strong intuitions' and assess their epistemological strength. ;In chapter four I endeavor to identify the most important interests--experiential welfare, freedom, autonomy, and life--and the characteristics that underlie them. Then I make suggestions regarding which animals possess these interests . I also discuss various interests typically had by humans that substantially add to the value of their lives. I reach various normative conclusions by interest-maximization. While some are general in character, concerning, for example, the comparative values of different kinds of lives, others are more specific and concern the harmful use of animals in research. For example, I contend that research animals are usually provided inadequate living space. ;Finally, I test these conclusions in chapter five with the intuitive method, using fixed and strong intuitions, before concluding. I contend that differences in moral status show up mainly with respect to life-interests and freedom-interests, but that the principle of equal consideration evens out moral status to a greater degree than is generally acknowledged

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,423

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Is equal moral consideration really compatible with unequal moral status?John Rossi - 2010 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 20 (3):251-276.
The Moral Status of Animals.Scott David Wilson - 2002 - Dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara
Capacities, Context and the Moral Status of Animals.Sherri Irvin - 2004 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 21 (1):61–76.
Moral Vegetarianism from a Very Broad Basis.David DeGrazia - 2009 - Journal of Moral Philosophy 6 (2):143-165.
Moral agency in other animals.Paul Shapiro - 2006 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 27 (4):357-373.
Can Animals have preference-interests?Julia Tanne - 2007 - Ethic@ - An International Journal for Moral Philosophy 6 (1):35-40.
The Grounds of Moral Status.Julie Tannenbaum & Agnieszka Jaworska - 2018 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:0-0.
Moral Status As a Matter of Degree?David DeGrazia - 2008 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 46 (2):181-198.
Speciesism and moral status.Peter Singer - 2009 - Metaphilosophy 40 (3-4):567-581.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-02-04

Downloads
1 (#1,889,095)

6 months
1 (#1,516,429)

Historical graph of downloads

Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

David DeGrazia
George Washington University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references