Animal Disenhancement for Animal Welfare: The Apparent Philosophical Conundrums and the Real Exploitation of Animals. A Response to Thompson and Palmer [Book Review]

NanoEthics 6 (1):65-76 (2012)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Abstract   In his paper “The Opposite of Human Enhancement: Nanotechnology and the Blind Chicken problem” ( Nanoethics 2: 305-36, 2008) Thompson argued that technological attempts to reduce or eliminate selected non-human animals’ capabilities (animal disenhancements) in order to solve or mitigate animal welfare problems in animals’ use pose a philosophical conundrum, because there is a contradiction between rational arguments in favor of these technological interventions and intuitions against them. In her response “Animal Disenhancement and the Non-Identity Problem: A Response to Thompson” ( Nanoethics 5:43–48, 2011), Palmer maintained that the philosophical conundrum is even deeper if we introduce the non-identity problem into the discussion. In my brief response, I claim that in order to avoid the pitfalls of speculative ethics, empirical facts related to the technologies involved as well as costs for the non-human animals have to be taken into account. Depending on which changes we are referring to, ethical problems can be seen very differently. Widening the consideration to the socio-economic context in which non-human animals are currently used by humans, I challenge the idea of genuine philosophical conundrums from an antispeciesist and abolitionist perspective. Only in a context of exploitation, in which non-human animals are deprived of basic rights and their existence is totally dependent on human exploitation, the contradictions between improvement of welfare and disenhancement of capabilities make sense. Content Type Journal Article Category Critical Discussion Notes Pages 1-12 DOI 10.1007/s11569-012-0139-1 Authors Arianna Ferrari, KIT/ITAS (Karlsruhe Institute of Technology/Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis), Karlsruhe, Germany Journal NanoEthics Online ISSN 1871-4765 Print ISSN 1871-4757

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,202

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Confining ‘Disenhanced’ Animals.John Hadley - 2012 - NanoEthics 6 (1):41-46.
Animal Ethics: Toward an Ethics of Responsiveness.Kelly Oliver - 2010 - Research in Phenomenology 40 (2):267-280.
Attitudes to animals: views in animal welfare.Francine L. Dolins (ed.) - 1999 - New York: Cambridge University Press.
Popular media and animals.Claire Molloy - 2011 - New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Veterinarian, Heal Thy Profession!Joel Marks - 2011 - Philosophy Now 85 (85):47.
The sciences of animal welfare.David J. Mellor - 2009 - Ames, Iowa: Wiley-Blackwell. Edited by Emily Patterson-Kane & Kevin J. Stafford.
Animal agriculture: Symbiosis, culture, or ethical conflict? [REVIEW]Vonne Lund & I. Anna S. Olsson - 2005 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19 (1):47-56.
Health and Welfare in Animals and Humans.Lennart Nordenfelt - 2011 - Acta Biotheoretica 59 (2):139-152.
Without a tear: our tragic relationship with animals.Mark H. Bernstein - 2004 - Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Analytics

Added to PP
2012-04-02

Downloads
139 (#128,728)

6 months
16 (#138,396)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

References found in this work

The Case for Animal Rights.Tom Regan - 2004 - Univ of California Press.
The case for animal rights.Tom Regan - 2009 - In Steven M. Cahn (ed.), Exploring ethics: an introductory anthology. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 425-434.
The animal that therefore I am.Jacques Derrida - 2008 - New York: Fordham University Press. Edited by Marie-Louise Mallet.
The Case for Animal Rights.Tom Regan - 1985 - Human Studies 8 (4):389-392.

View all 20 references / Add more references