Advertisement

Moral Standing of Animals and Some Problems in Veterinarian Ethics

  • Stefan SencerzEmail author
Articles
  • 13 Downloads

Abstract

This paper discusses the Indirect Duties View implying that, when our actions have no negative effects on humans, we can treat animals any way we wish. I offer several criticisms of this view. Subsequently, I explore some implications of rejecting this view that rise in the contexts of animal research and veterinarian ethics.

Keywords

Moral status of animals Duties to animals Indirect duties view Aquinas Kant Research ethics Veterinarian ethics 

Notes

References

  1. Aquinas, T. (1947). Summa theologica. Fathers of english Dominican province (B. Benziger, Trans.).Google Scholar
  2. Aquinas, T. (1955–1957). Summa contra gentiles. O. P. Joseph Kenny (Ed.). New York: Hanover House.Google Scholar
  3. Beauchamp, T., & Childress, J. F. (2009). Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Carruthers, P. (1992). The animals issue: Morality in practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cases for the Fourteenth Intercollegiate Ethics Bowl in San Antonio 2008 (Case 3). Association for Practical and Professional Ethics. http://ethics.iit.edu/eb/2008%20National%20EB%20cases.pdf).
  6. Eisnitz, G. A. (1997). Slaughterhouse: the shocking story of greed, neglect, and inhumane treatment inside the U.S. meat industry. Amherst: Prometheus.Google Scholar
  7. Hursthouse, R. (2006). Applying virtue ethics to our treatment of other animals. In J. Welchman (Ed.), The practice of virtue: Classical and contemporary readings. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  8. Kant, I. 1991 (1797). The Metaphysics of morals (M. Gregor, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Kant, I. (1997). Lectures on ethics P. Heath, J. B. Schneewind (Eds.), (P. Heath Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Kant, I. (2002). Groundwork for the metaphysics of morals, A. W. Wood (Ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Kant, I. 2006 (1798). Anthropology from a pragmatic point of view, R. B. Louden (Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Korsgaard, C. M. (2004). Fellow creatures: Kantian ethics and our duties to animals. In G. B. Peterson (Ed.), The tanner lectures on human values (Vol. 25/26). Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.Google Scholar
  13. Korsgaard, C. M. (2012). Kantian case for animal rights. In M. Michel, et al. (Eds.), Animal law—Tier in recht (pp. 3–27). Zurich: St. Gallen.Google Scholar
  14. Orlans, F. B., et al. (1998). The human use of animals: Case studies in ethical choice. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Regan, T. (1982). The nature and possibility of an environmental ethics. In R. Tom (Ed.), All that dwell therein: Animal rights and environmental ethics. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
  16. Regan, T. (1983). The case for animal rights. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  17. Regan, T., & Singer, P. (Eds.). (1976). Animal rights and human obligations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  18. Rollin, B. E. (1981). Animal rights and human morality. New York: Prometheus.Google Scholar
  19. Sencerz, S. (2011). Utilitarianism and replaceability revisited or are animals expendable? Between the Species,14(1), 81–106.Google Scholar
  20. Singer, P. (1975). Animal liberation. New York: New York Review of Books.Google Scholar
  21. Singer, P. (1993). Practical ethics (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.HumanitiesTexas A&M University – CCCorpus ChristiUSA

Personalised recommendations