If pigs could fly, should they?

Ethical Perspectives 13 (4):621-645 (2006)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Life-science art is a generic term which describes a new kind of collaboration between artists and scientists which adds a new dimension to the polemics of the ‘philosophy of art.’ Utilising the techniques and materials made available by developments in biotechnology, artists, and scientists produce objects not for scientific benefit but aesthetic objects designed to enchant, shock, or familiarize the audience with the fanciful applications to which this technology can be put: the creation of pig wings, fish that can draw, rabbits that glow in the dark and dead men that appear to play chess.This paper investigates the moral implications of the incorporation of living and non-living plant, animal, and human tissue as part of the artistic palette. It is argued that the rupture between the beautiful and the good that characterises much of contemporary thinking directly leads to the morally dubious practices of life-science art and that there are very good reasons drawn from utilitarian and natural law traditions against such “artistic” endeavours

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,616

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

Before Pigs' Germs Fly: Xenotransplantation and a Call for Federal Action.Susan E. Herz - 2001 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 10 (4):441-444.
Ethical issues associated with sheep fly strike research, prevention, and control.Michael C. Morris - 2000 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 13 (3-4):205-217.
Imperfect identity.Eric T. Olson - 2006 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 106 (2):247–264.
Platonism, Moral Nostalgia and the City of Pigs.Rachel Barney - 2001 - Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium of Ancient Philosophy 17 (1):207-27.
Puppies, Pigs, and Potency: A Response to Galvin and Harris.Alastair Norcross - 2012 - Ethics, Policy and Environment 15 (3):384 - 388.
Believing in Words.Herman Cappelen & Josh Dever - 2001 - Synthese 127 (3):279 - 301.
Contradictory Belief and Epistemic Closure Principles.Bryan Frances - 1999 - Mind and Language 14 (2):203–226.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-09-02

Downloads
26 (#524,350)

6 months
2 (#668,348)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

What Ethics for Bioart?Nora S. Vaage - 2016 - NanoEthics 10 (1):87-104.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references