Res Publica

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 159–172

Rawls, Animals and Justice: New Literature, Same Response

Article

Abstract

This article seeks to revisit the relationship between Rawls’s contractarianism and the moral status of animals, paying particular attention to the recent literature. Despite Rawls’s own reluctance to include animals as recipients of justice, and my own initial scepticism, a number of scholars have argued that his theory does provide resources that are useful for the animal advocate. The first type takes Rawls’s exclusion of animals from his theory of justice at face value but argues that animals can still be protected within a moral realm independently of justice, or indirectly through the motivations of human contractors. The second type adapts his theory in a way that enables animals to be included within a contractarian theory of justice. It is argued, though, that none of the responses offered is successful in providing a sphere of protection for animals from within Rawls’s contractarian theory. It is doubtful if Rawls’s intention was for animals to receive a significant degree of protection within a moral realm independently of justice, and equally doubtful if the contractors in the original position would be motivated to act on behalf of animals. In the case of the second, whilst Rawlsian resources can be utilised to justify the attempt to amend the veil of ignorance so as to include animals, these are not dependent on a contractural agreement. Similarly, placing emphasis on social-co-operation as a means of incorporating animals into a theory of justice is flawed, not least because, paradoxically, it works for domesticated animals whilst they are being exploited.

Keywords

Rawls Animals Contractarianism Justice 

References

  1. Abbey, Ruth. 2007. Rawlsian resources for animal ethics Ethics and the Environment, 12: 1–22.Google Scholar
  2. Barry, Brian. 1989. Theories of justice. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  3. Baxter, Brian. 2005. A theory of ecological justice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Carruthers, Peter. 1992. The animals issue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Coeckelbergh, Mark. 2009. Distributive justice and co-operation in a world of humans and non-humans: A contractarian argument for drawing non-humans into the sphere of justice. Res Publica 15: 67–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fellenz, Marc. 2007. The moral menagerie: Philosophy and animal rights. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  7. Filice, Carlo. 2006. Rawls and non-rational beneficiaries. Between the Species Issue VI. http://cla.calpoly.edu/bts/issue_06/06filice.htm.
  8. Garner, Robert. 2003. Animals, politics and justice: Rawlsian liberalism and the plight of non-humans. Environmental Politics 12: 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Garner, Robert. 2005. The political theory of animal rights. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Gauthier, David. 1986. Morals by agreement. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  11. Kymlicka, Will. 1993. The social contract tradition. In A companion to ethics, ed. Peter Singer, 186–196. Blackwell: Oxford.Google Scholar
  12. Morris, Christopher. 1998. Justice, reasons and moral standing. In Rational commitment and social justice, eds. Jules Coleman and Christopher Morris, 186–207. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Narveson, Jan. 1983. Animal rights revisited. In Ethics and animals, eds. Harlan Miller and William Williams, 45–59. Clifton: Humana Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nozick, Robert. 1974. Anarchy, state and utopia. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  15. O’Sullivan, Siobhan. 2007. Advocating for animals equally from within a liberal paradigm. Environmental Politics 16: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rawls, John. 1963. The sense of justice. The Philosophical Review 122: 281–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rawls, John. 1971. A theory of justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Rawls, John. 1993. Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Regan, Tom. 1984. The case for animal rights. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Richards, David. 1971. A theory of reasons for action. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  21. Rowlands, Mark. 1997. Contractarianism and animal rights. Journal of Applied Philosophy 14: 235–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rowlands, Mark. 1998. Animal rights: A philosophical defence. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  23. Rowlands, Mark. 2009. Animal rights: Moral theory and practice, 2nd ed. Palgrave: Basingstoke.Google Scholar
  24. Sandoe, Peter, and Stine Christiansen. 2008. Ethics of animal use. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  25. Singer, Peter. 1990. Animal liberation, 2nd ed. London: Cape.Google Scholar
  26. Vandeveer, Donald. 1979. Of beasts, persons and the original position. The Monist 62: 368–377.Google Scholar
  27. Wolff, Jonathan. 1996. An introduction to political philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Politics and International RelationsUniversity of LeicesterLeicesterUK

Personalised recommendations