Advertisement

NanoEthics

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 225–236 | Cite as

Animal Disenhancement in Moral Context

  • Korinn N. Murphy
  • William P. Kabasenche
Original Paper
  • 109 Downloads

Abstract

To mitigate animal suffering under industrial farming conditions, biotechnology companies are pursuing the development of genetically disenhanced animals. Recent advances in gene editing biotechnology have brought this to reality. In one of the first discussions of the ethics of disenhancement, Thompson argued that it is hard to find compelling reasons to oppose it. We offer an argument against disenhancement that draws upon parallels with human disenhancement, ecofeminism’s concern with the “logic of domination,” and a relational ethic that seeks to preserve a meaningful relationship between farmers and their animals. In addition, we respond to two arguments in favor of animal disenhancement—one grounded in the non-identity problem and one that argues disenhancement is the best we can do to protect animal well-being right now. We argue that animal disenhancement does not address the fundamental issue of oppression of animals in the context of contemporary animal agriculture. Therefore, we conclude that animal disenhancement is not nearly as valuable as it might appear initially.

Keywords

Disenhancement Animal rights Animal ethics Ecofeminism Relational ethics Non-identity problem 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful for the constructive comments of two anonymous reviewers for this journal. We believe our paper is better as a result of our attempts to respond to their helpful feedback.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Carlson DF, Lancto CA, Zang B, Kim E-S, Walton M, Oldeschulte D, Seabury C, Sonstegard TS, Fahrenkrug SC (2016) Production of hornless dairy cattle from genome-edited cell lines. Nat Biotechnol 34:479–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Thompson P (2008) The opposite of human enhancement: nanotechnology and the blind chicken problem. NanoEthics 2(3):305–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Warren K (2000) Ecofeminist philosophy: a Western perspective on what it is and why it matters. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MDGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Palmer C (2011) Animal Disenhancement and the non-identity problem: a response to Thompson. NanoEthics 5(1):43–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Singer P (1975/1990) Animal liberation, New Revised Edition. Avon Books, Inc. New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Regan T (1983) The case for animal rights. University of California Press, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Curtin D (1991) Toward an ecological ethic of care. Hypatia 6(1):60–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Acampora R (2014) Caring cannibals and human(e) farming: testing contextual edibility for speciesism. In: Adams CJ, Gruen L (eds) Ecofeminism: feminist intersections with other animals and the earth. Bloomsbury, New York, pp 145–158Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Twine R (2014) Ecofeminism and veganism: revisiting the question of universalism. In: Adams CJ, Gruen L (eds) Ecofeminism: feminist intersections with other animals and the earth. Bloomsbury, New York, pp 191–208Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Savulescu J, Bostrom N (eds) (2009) Human enhancement. Oxford University Press. New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Savulescu J, ter Meulen R, Kahane G (eds) (2011) Enhancing human capacities. Blackwell Publishing Ltd., MaldenGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Agar N (2014) Truly human enhancement: a philosophical defense of limits. MIT Press, Cambridge, MACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Twine R (2010) Animals as biotechnology: ethics, sustainability and critical animal studies. Earthscan from Routledge, New York, NYCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ferrari A (2012) Animal disenhancement for animal welfare: the apparent philosophical conundrums and the real exploitation of animals. A response to Thompson and Palmer. NanoEthics 6(1):65–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Caruso JP, Sheehan JP (2017) Psychosurgery, ethics, and media: a history of Walter Freeman and the lobotomy. Neurosurg Focus 43(3):E6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Breggin P (1977) If psychosurgery is wrong in principle…? Psychiatric Opinion 14(6):23Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kukla R (2005) Mass hysteria: medicine, culture, and mothers’ bodies. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MDGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    El-Hai J (2005) The lobotomist: a maverick medical genius and his tragic quest to rid the world of mental illness. Hoboken, NJGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gunther DF, Diekema DS (2006) Attenuating growth in children with profound developmental disability. JAMA Pediatr 160(10):1013–1017Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Diekema DS, Fost N (2010) Ashley revisited: a response to the critics. Am J Bioeth 10(1):30–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schultz-Bergin M (2014) Making better sense of animal disenhancement: a reply to Henschke. NanoEthics 8(1):101–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shriver A (2009) Knocking out pain in livestock: can technology succeed where morality has stalled? Neuroethics 2(3):115–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Grandin T (2008) Humane livestock handling. Storey PublishingGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Adams CJ, Gruen L (2014) Ecofeminism: feminist intersections with other animals and the earth. Bloomsbury, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Frye M (1983) The politics of reality. The Crossing Press, Freedom, CAGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    USDA (2013) Animal Welfare Act. https://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/animal-welfare-act
  27. 27.
    Adams C (2003) The pornography of meat. Continuum, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    D’Eath RB, Conington J, Lawrence AB, Olsson IAS, Sandoe P (2010) Breeding for behavioural change in farm animals: practical, economic and ethical considerations. Anim Welf 19(S):17–27Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    USDA (2014) Preliminary report: U.S. Farms and Farmers. https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Preliminary_Report/Highlights.pdf
  30. 30.
    CDC (2016) Suicide Rates by Occupational Group — 17 States, 2012. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/wr/pdfs/mm6525.pdf
  31. 31.
    Richardson C (2013) A critique of modern agriculture and its effect on personhood. Res Cogitans 4(1):19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hanna D (2009) The relationship between the stockperson’s personality and attitudes and the productivity of dairy cows. Animal 3(5):737–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bertenshaw C, Rowlinson P (2009) Exploring stock managers’ perceptions of the human-animal relationship on dairy farms and an association with milk production. Anthrozoos 22(1):59–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hemsworth PH, Barnett JL, Coleman GJ (1993) The human-animal relationship in agriculture and its consequences for the animal. Anim Welf 2:33–51Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gilligan C (1982) In a different voice: psychological theory and women’s development. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Noddings N (1984) Caring: a feminine approach to ethics and moral education. University of California Press, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Groenhout R (2004) Connected lives: human nature and an ethics of care. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, MDGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Noddings N (2012) The language of care ethics. Knowledge Quest 40(5):52–56Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hamington M (2008) Learning ethics from our relationships with animals: moral imagination. Int J Appl Philos 22:2Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gruen L (2014) Entangled empathy: an alternative ethic for our relationships with animals. Lantern Books, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Donovan J, Adams CJ (1996) Beyond animal rights: a feminist caring ethic for the treatment of animals. Continuum, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Bennett R (2009) The fallacy of the principle of procreative beneficence. Bioethics 23(5):265–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wasserman D (2005) The non-identity problem, disability, and the role morality of prospective parents. Ethics 116(1):132–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Molecular BiosciencesWashington State UniversityPullmanUSA
  2. 2.NIH Protein Biotechnology Training ProgramWashington State UniversityPullmanUSA
  3. 3.School of Politics, Philosophy, and Public Affairs, College of Arts and SciencesWashington State UniversityPullmanUSA
  4. 4.Elson S. Floyd College of MedicineWashington State UniversityPullmanUSA
  5. 5.Center for Reproductive BiologyWashington State UniversityPullmanUSA

Personalised recommendations