Abstract
In this chapter, I address two objections to animal neopragmatism: the anything goes objection and the no practical difference objection. The anything goes objection is in response to pragmatism’s signature rejection of philosophical realism and the correspondence theory of truth. The claim is that neopragmatism entails that there are no epistemic standards against which to evaluate rival claims in public deliberation about animal related issues. In response, I point out how a Peircean view of truth and a warranted assertibility theory of justification are compatible with neopragmatism. The no practical difference objection is that because neopragmatism preserves the vocabulary of welfare and rights, debate about animal protection will proceed in familiar terms in the usual ways. In response to this objection I stress that, consistent with its pragmatic inheritance, neopragmatism is an ameliorative theory. To conclude, I discuss the work of institutional animal ethics committees to illustrate the practical implications of neopragmatism. The inclusion of consensus or resonance in the neopragmatic theory of deliberation generates a hypothetical prudential obligation on the part of deliberators to be cognizant of the motivations of their fellow community of inquiry members.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Bacon, Michael. 2012. Pragmatism: An introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Fish, Stanley. 2001. Holocaust denial and academic freedom. Valapariso University Law Journal 35 (3): 499–524.
Garner, Robert. 2003. A theory of justice for animals. Oxford: Oxford University Pres.
Guignan, Charles, and David R. Hiley. 2003. Introduction: Richard Rorty and contemporary philosophy. In Richard Rorty, ed. Charles Guignon and David R. Hiley, 1–40. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gutting, Gary, 2003. Rorty’s critique of epistemology. In Richard Rorty, ed. Charles Guignon and David R. Hiley, 41–60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kauppinen, Antti. 2016. Meaningfulness. In The Routledge handbook of the philosophy of well-being, ed. Guy Fletcher, 281–291. London: Routledge.
Koopman, Colin. 2009. Pragmatism as transition: Historicity and hope in James, Dewey and Rorty. New York: Columbia University Press.
Legg, Catherine, and Christopher Hookway. 2019. Pragmatism. In The Stanford encyclopaedia of philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/pragmatism/. Accessed 29 March 2019.
Malachowski, Alan. 2010. New pragmatists. Durham: Acumen.
Misak, Cheryl. 2013. The American pragmatists. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Monamy, Vaughan. 2000. Animal experimentation: A guide to the issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Peirce, Charles Sanders. [1877] 1997. The fixation of belief. In Pragmatism: A reader, ed. Louis Menand, 7–25. New York: Vintage Books.
Price, Huw. 2003. Truth as convenient friction. Journal of Philosophy 100 (4): 167–190.
Price, Huw. 2013. Expressivism, pragmatism and representationalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Putnam, Hilary. 2004. Ethics without ontology. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
Rollin, Bernard. 2006. Regulation of animal research and the emergence of animal ethics: A conceptual history. Theoretical Medicine 27: 285–304.
Rorty, Richard. 1979. Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Rorty, Richard. 1989. Contingency, irony and solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rorty, Richard. 1991. Objectivity, relativism and truth: Philosophical papers, vol. I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Russell, Denise. 2012. Why animal ethics committees don’t work. Between the Species 15 (1). https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/bts/vol15/iss1/8/. Accessed 10 March 2019.
Schuppli, C.A. 2011. Decisions about the use of animals in research: Ethical reflection by animal ethics committee members. Anthrozoos 24: 409–425.
Tjärnström, Elizabeth, Elin M. Weber, Jan Hultgren, and Helena Röcklinsberg. 2018. Emotions and ethical decision-making in animal ethics committees. Animals 8 (10): 181. http://doi.org/10.3390/ani8100181.
Wolf, Susan. 2010. Meaning in life and why it matters. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Wolf, Susan. 2016. Meaningfulness: A third dimension of the good life. Foundations of Science 21: 253–269.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hadley, J. (2019). Objections to Animal Neopragmatism. In: Animal Neopragmatism. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25980-8_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25980-8_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-25979-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-25980-8
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)