Is there a morally relevant difference between human and animal nonpersons?

Journal of Agricultural Ethics 1 (1):59-68 (1988)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

It is commonly believed that we humans are justified in exploiting animals because we are “higher” beings:persons who have highly complex, autonomous lives as moral agents. However, there are many “marginal” humans who are not and never will be persons. Those who think it is permissible to exploit animal nonpersons but wrong to do the same to human nonpersons must show that there is a morally relevant difference between the two groups. Speciesists, who believe that membership in a species whose normal adults are persons is sufficient for a right to life, attempt to do just this. As the failure of the best arguments which can be marshalled on their behalf indicates, they are unable to justify their view. I conclude that, although there is a morally relevant difference between human nonpersons and most animal nonpersons, this difference is not an indication of superior moral status. We would do better to abandon speciesism and the assumption thatpersonhood is morally paramount for a view which implies that both human and nonhuman nonpersons are morally considerable and have a right to life.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,612

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

Is there a morally relevant difference between human and animal nonpersons?Evelyn Pluhar - 1988 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 1 (1):59-68.
The Argument from Marginal Cases: is species a relevant difference.Julia Tanner - 2011 - Croatian Journal of Philosophy 11 (2):225-235.
Species as a relationship.Julia Tanner - 2008 - Acta Analytica 23 (4):337-347.
The moral status of post-persons.Michael Hauskeller - 2013 - Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (2):76-77.
Speciesism and moral status.Peter Singer - 2009 - Metaphilosophy 40 (3-4):567-581.
Animals, Heidegger, and the Right to Life.George S. Cave - 1982 - Environmental Ethics 4 (3):249-254.

Analytics

Added to PP
2016-02-04

Downloads
15 (#950,671)

6 months
4 (#1,005,811)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references