Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16 (5):1075-1088 (2013)

Authors
Beril Sözmen
Bogazici University
Abstract
The paper is concerned with whether the reductio of the natural-harm-argument can be avoided by disvaluing non-human suffering and death. According to the natural-harm-argument, alleviating the suffering of non-human animals is not a moral obligation for human beings because such an obligation would also morally prescribe human intervention in nature for the protection of non-human animal interests which, it claims, is absurd. It is possible to avoid the reductio by formulating the moral obligation to alleviate non-human suffering and death with two constraints: The first concerns the practicability of intervention and establishes a moral obligation to intervene only in cases where this is humanly possible. The other constraint acknowledges that lack of competence in humans can risk producing more harm than good by intervening. A third way of avoiding the problematic version of the natural-harm-argument considers whether human and non-human suffering and death are sufficiently different to allow different types of responses. I argue that the attempt to avoid the reductio of the natural-harm-argument by disvaluing non-human death can only work with an anthropocentric bias, which accords to non-human suffering and death a fundamentally different value and that it fails to dismiss the moral obligation created by the harm that non-human animals face in the wild
Keywords Applied ethics  Animal rights  Intervention  Moral obligation
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s10677-013-9416-5
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 72,577
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Animal Liberation.Peter Singer (ed.) - 1977 - Avon Books.
The Case for Animal Rights.Tom Regan - 2009 - In Steven M. Cahn (ed.), Noûs. Oxford University Press. pp. 425-434.
The Case for Animal Rights.Tom Regan - 1983 - University of California Press, C1983.

View all 26 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Wild Animal Suffering is Intractable.Nicolas Delon & Duncan Purves - 2018 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 31 (2):239-260.
Animal Rights and the Problem of R-Strategists.Kyle Johannsen - 2017 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 20 (2):333-45.
Egalitarianism and Animals.Oscar Horta - 2016 - Between the Species 19 (1):108-144.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Relationship Between Workers and Animals in the Pork Industry: A Shared Suffering.Jocelyne Porcher - 2011 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 24 (1):3-17.
Human Dignity and the Ethics and Aesthetics of Pain and Suffering.Daryl Pullman - 2002 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 23 (1):75-94.
Human Enhancement and Supra-Personal Moral Status.Thomas Douglas - 2013 - Philosophical Studies 162 (3):473-497.
Food Fight! Davis Versus Regan on the Ethics of Eating Beef.Andy Lamey - 2007 - Journal of Social Philosophy 38 (2):331–348.
Animals, Handicapped Children and the Tragedy of Marginal Cases.J. L. Nelson - 1988 - Journal of Medical Ethics 14 (4):191-193.
Duties to Companion Animals.Steve Cooke - 2011 - Res Publica 17 (3):261-274.
Reason in Context.R. Mary Hayden Lemmons - 2009 - Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 83:155-172.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2013-03-09

Total views
53 ( #217,732 of 2,533,592 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #389,998 of 2,533,592 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes