Facing Animals: A Relational, Other-Oriented Approach to Moral Standing

Abstract

In this essay we reflect critically on how animal ethics, and in particular thinking about moral standing, is currently configured. Starting from the work of two influential “analytic” thinkers in this field, Peter Singer and Tom Regan, we examine some basic assumptions shared by these positions and demonstrate their conceptual failings—ones that have, despite efforts to the contrary, the general effect of marginalizing and excluding others. Inspired by the so-called “continental” philosophical tradition (in particular Emmanuel Levinas, Martin Heidegger, and Jacques Derrida), we then argue that what is needed is a change in the rules of the game, a change of the question. We alter the (pre-) normative question from “What properties does the animal have?” to “What are the conditions under which an entity becomes a moral subject?” This leads us to consider the role of language, personal relations, and material-technological contexts. What is needed then in response to the moral standing problem, is not more of the same—yet another, more refined criterion and argumentation concerning moral standing, or a “final” rational argumentation that would be able to settle the animal question once and for all—but a turning or transformation in both our thinking about and our relations to animals, through language, through technology, and through the various place-ordering practices in which we participate.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    A recent addition to the FAQ published on the Chicago Manual of Style web site addresses this matter in the context of a grammatical question concerning pronouns:

    Q. When referring to a zombie, should I use the relative pronoun who (which would refer to a person) or that (since, technically, the zombie is no longer living)? Essentially, does a zombie cease to become a “person” in the grammatical sense?

    A. Let’s assume this is a serious question, in which case you, as the writer, get to decide just how much humanity (if any) and grammatical sense you wish to invest in said zombie. That will guide your choice of who or that (CMS 2013).

  2. 2.

    The terms “moral agent” and “moral patient” refer to the two components of the ethical relationship—the initiator of moral decision and action and the receiver of such activity. Although the term “moral agent” has considerable acceptance throughout the philosophical tradition, the term “moral patient” is a rather recent formulation. For more on this terminology and its importance in structuring moral thinking, see Luciano Floridi’s “Information Ethics” (1999) and David Gunkel’s The Machine Question (2012).

References

  1. Adams, C. J. (2010). The sexual politics of meat: A feminist–vegetarian critical theory. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bentham, J. (1780). In J. H. Burns & H. L. Hart (Eds.), An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Birch, T. H. (1993). Moral considerability and universal consideration. Environmental Ethics, 15, 313–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Braithwaite, V. (2010). Do fish feel pain?. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Churchland, P. M. (1999). Matter and consciousness (rev ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. CMS (Chicago Manuel of Style). (2013). http://chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Pronouns/faq0020.html.

  8. Coeckelbergh, M. (2012). Growing moral relations: Critique of moral status ascription. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. Coelho, S. (2013). Dolphins gain unprecedented protection in India. Deutsche Welle. http://dw.de/p/18dQV.

  10. Cohen, R. A. (2001). Ethics, exegesis, and philosophy: Interpretation after Levinas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  11. DeMello, M. (2012). Animals and society: An introduction to human–animal studies. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Derrida, J. (2005). Paper machine (R. Bowlby, Trans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

  13. Derrida, J. (2008). The animal that therefore I am (M.-L. Mallet, Ed., D. Wills, Trans.). New York: Fordham University Press.

  14. Descartes, R. (1637). Discourse on the method. Selected philosophical writings (J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff, & D. Murdoch, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  15. Floridi, L. (1999). Information ethics: On the philosophical foundation of computer ethics. Ethics and Information Technology, 1(1), 37–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gunkel, D. J. (2012). The machine question: Critical perspectives on AI, robots, and ethics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  17. Hall, M. (2011). Plants as persons: A philosophical botany. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Haraway, D. (2008). When species meet. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Heidegger, M. (1927). Being and time (J. Stambaugh, Trans.). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

  20. Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology. In The question concerning technology and other essays (W. Lovitt, Trans.). New York: Harper and Row.

  21. Heidegger, M. (1995). The fundamental concepts of metaphysics: World, finitude, solitude (W. McNeill & N. Walker, Trans.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

  22. Heidegger, M. (1998). Pathmarks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Korsgaard, C. (2007). Facing the animal you see in the mirror. Harvard Review of Philosophy, 16, 2–7.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Levinas, E. (1969). Totality and infinity (A. Lingis, Trans.). Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.

  25. Levinas, E. (1987). Collected philosophical papers (A. Lingis, Trans.). Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

  26. Levinas, E. (1988). The paradox of morality: An interview with Emmanuel Levinas (A. Benjamin and T. Wright, Trans.). In R. Bernasconi & D. Wood (Eds.), The provocation of Levinas: Rethinking the other (pp. 168–180). New York: Routledge.

  27. Marder, M. (2013). Plant-thinking: A philosophy of vegetal life. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Regan, T. (1983). The case for animal rights. Berkeley: The University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Singer, P. (1975). Animal liberation. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Torrance, S. (2013). Artificial consciousness and artificial ethics: Between realism and social relationism. Philosophy and Technology. doi:10.1007/s13347-013-0136-5.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark Coeckelbergh.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Coeckelbergh, M., Gunkel, D.J. Facing Animals: A Relational, Other-Oriented Approach to Moral Standing. J Agric Environ Ethics 27, 715–733 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-013-9486-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Animal ethics
  • Moral standing
  • Levinas
  • Moral language
  • Technology
  • Place