Abstract
The Swiss expert report suggests that the inherent dignity of a living being be identified with its inherent value. But the phrase “inherent value of a living being” seems to connote two concepts of inherent value. One has a morally obligating character but is counterintuitive because of its egalitarianism. The other is one of non-moral value. It is more compatible with considered intuitions but insufficient for substantiating the expert report’s claim that human beings have moral duties towards animals and plants. The paper discusses these concepts. Consideration is then given to the problem of how discursive support can be generated for the expert report’s claim that human beings have the moral duty to abstain from impairing those functions and abilities of a non-human being that members of its species as a rule can practice.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Balzer, P., K. P. Rippe and P. Schaber,Was heisst Würde der Kreatur? Gutachten für das Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft, Schriftenreihe Umwelt 294, Bern 1997.
DePaul, M. R.,Balance and Refinement: Beyond coherence methods of moral inquiry (Routledge, London and New York, 1993).
Rollin, B. E.,The Frankenstein Syndrome: Ethical and social issues in the genetic engineering of animals (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995).
Taylor, P. W.,Respect for Nature: A theory of environmental ethics (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1986).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Heeger, R. Genetic engineering and the dignity of creatures. J Agric Environ Ethics 13, 43–51 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02694134
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02694134