Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ethical Considerations of the Human–Animal-Relationship Under Conditions of Asymmetry and Ambivalence

  • Published:
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Ethical reflection deals not only with the moral standing and handling of animals, it should also include a critical analysis of the underlying relationship. Anthropological, psychological, and sociological aspects of the human–animal-relationship should be taken into account. Two conditions, asymmetry and ambivalence, are taken as the historical and empirical basis for reflections on the human–animal-relationship in late modern societies. These conditions explain the variety of moral practice, apart from paradoxes, and provide a framework to systematize animal ethical problems in a broader field. This allows the development of ideal relationships as moral orientation across anthropocentric or sentientistic ethical theories. These ideal relationships are called the patronage-model, the friendship-model and the partnership-model. The ethical problem of creating transgenic animals is discussed in the light of these ideal relationships.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • A. Arluke (1999) ArticleTitle“Uneasiness Among Laboratory Technicians” Occupational Medicine 14 IssueID2 305–316

    Google Scholar 

  • P. Balzer K. P. Rippe P. Schaber (2000) ArticleTitle“Two Concepts of Dignity for Humans and Non-Human Organisms in the Context of Genetic Engineering” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 13 IssueID1 7–27 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1009536230634

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • H. Baranzke (1999) “Das Blut ist der Sitz der Lebensseele. Von einem Ethos des Schlachtens und des Schächtens der Tiere” J. C. Joerden B. Busch (Eds) Tiere ohne Rechte? Springer Berlin/Heidelberg/New York et al. 235–266

    Google Scholar 

  • S. W. Bloom (1995) “Professional-Patient Relationship. Sociological Perspectives” W. T. Reich (Eds) Encyclopedia of Bioethics NumberInSeriesVol. 4 Simon & Schuster and Prentice Hall International New York 2084–2094

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Dol M. F. Vlissinger S. Kasanmoentalib T. Visser H. Zwart (1999) Recognizing the Intrinsic Value of Animals Van Gorcum Assen

    Google Scholar 

  • E. J. Emanuel L. L. Emanuel (1992) ArticleTitle“Four Models of the Physician-Patient-Relationship” Journal of American Medical Association, 267 IssueID16 2221–2226 Occurrence Handle10.1001/jama.267.16.2221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • H. Herzog (2002) ArticleTitle“Ethical aspects of relationships between humans and research animals” ILAR Journal/National Research Council, Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources 43 IssueID1 27–32

    Google Scholar 

  • C. Larrère R. Larrère (2000) ArticleTitle“Animal rearing as a contract?” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 12 51–58 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1009552109479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Libell, M. (2004), “Pros and cons of Anthropomorphism,” in J. De Tavernier and S. Aerts (eds.), Science, Ethics and Society, Preprints of the 5th Congress of the European Society of Food and Agricultural Ethics, pp. 232–235.

  • V. Lund R. Anthony H. Röcklinsberg (2004) ArticleTitle“The ethical contract as a tool in organic animal husbandry” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 17 23–49

    Google Scholar 

  • I. Pepperberg (1991) “A Communicative Approach to Animal Cognition: A Study of Conceptual Abilities of African Grey Parrot” C. Ristau (Eds) Cognitive Ethology Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Hillsdale 153–186

    Google Scholar 

  • H. Röcklinsberg (2001) Das seufzende Schwein Harald-Fischer-Verlag Erlangen

    Google Scholar 

  • E. Rudolph (1972) Schulderlebnis und Entschuldung im Bereich der säkularen Tiertötung Peter Lang Frankfurt

    Google Scholar 

  • S. Schicktanz (2002) Organlieferant Tier? Medizin- und tierethische Probleme der Xenotransplantation Campus Frankfurt a.M./New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Schicktanz, S. (2005): “‘Principlism’ for the Human–Animal-Relationship? Convergences and Consensus in Applied Animal Ethics,” Submitted.

  • B. Sitter-Liver (1999) ArticleTitle“Xenotransplantation in the light of animal ethics” Biomedical Ethics 4 IssueID3 77–86

    Google Scholar 

  • R. M. Veatch (1972) ArticleTitle“Models for Ethical Medicine in a Revolutionary Age” Hastings Center Report 2 IssueID3 5–7

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Wiedenmann (1998) “Die Fremdheit der Tiere. Zum Wandel der Ambivalenz von Mensch-Tier-Beziehunge” P. Münch (Eds) Tiere und Menschen Ferdinand Schöningh Paderborn 351–382

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Ethics, History and Theory in Medicine, University of Muenster, Germany

    Silke Schicktanz

Authors
  1. Silke Schicktanz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Silke Schicktanz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schicktanz, S. Ethical Considerations of the Human–Animal-Relationship Under Conditions of Asymmetry and Ambivalence. J Agric Environ Ethics 19, 7–16 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-005-4374-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-005-4374-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation