Advertisement

Communitarianism and Animals

  • Alasdair Cochrane
Part of the The Palgrave Macmillan Animal Ethics Series book series (PMAES)

Abstract

We saw in the last chapter that John Rawls published his A Theory of Justice as a response to the dominant utilitarian ideas of the time. Rawls wanted to offer a defence of liberal democratic institutions that was not contingent on overall welfare and which took the so-called separateness of persons seriously. While Rawls’s two principles were not suddenly heralded and adopted by the political leaders of the time, in terms of its impact on political theory, Rawls’s project can be viewed as something of a success. After all, numerous alternative liberal theories emerged after the publication of Rawls’s book, and it is fair to say that liberalism has been the dominant political theory in the Anglo-American world ever since. Perhaps unsurprisingly, however, liberalism has not been without its critics. One of the most important challenges to Rawls’s thought, and to liberalism more generally, emerged in the 1980s from a group of thinkers who have been labelled ‘communitarians’. While all of the theories examined in this book come in different shapes and sizes, with all having their own internal disputes, it is perhaps fair to say that such diversity is most pronounced in the case of communitarianism. For one, some of those thinkers most famously associated with communitarianism — Michael Walzer, Michael Sandel, Alasdair MacIntyre and Charles Taylor — have resisted the tag.1

Keywords

Animal Welfare Native People Political Theory Common Good Political Community 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    The important works of these thinkers include M. Walzer (1983) Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality (New York: Basic Books);Google Scholar
  2. M. Sandel (1982) Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press);Google Scholar
  3. A. MacIntyre (1981) After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory (London: Duckworth);Google Scholar
  4. C. Taylor (1985) Philosophy and the Human Sciences (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 3.
    George Orwell quoted in J. Serpell and E. Paul (1994) ‘Pets and the Development of Positive Attitudes to Animals’ in A. Manning and J. Serpell (eds) Animals and Human Society: Changing Perspectives (London: Routledge), pp. 127–8.Google Scholar
  6. 5.
    S. Moller Okin, J. Cohen, M. Howard and M. Nussbaum (1999) Is Multi-culturalism Bad for Women? (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
  7. 6.
    B. Parekh (2000) Rethinking Multiculturalism: Cultural Diversity and Political Theory (Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave), p. 136.Google Scholar
  8. 7.
    E. Reinders (2000) ‘Animals, Attitude Toward: Buddhist Perspectives’ in W. Johnson (ed.) Encyclopedia of Monasticism Vol. 1 (Chicago, IL: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers), pp. 30–1.Google Scholar
  9. 12.
    M. Midgley (1983) Animals and Why They Matter (Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press), p. 102.Google Scholar
  10. 18.
    E. Aaltola (2005) ‘Animal Ethics and Interest Conflicts’, Ethics and the Environment, 10, 21–48, especially, p. 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 20.
    On this distinction between first- and second-order impartiality, see B. Barry (1995) Justice as Impartiality (Oxford: Oxford University Press), p. 194.Google Scholar
  12. 21.
    J. Baird Callicott (1989) ‘Animal Liberation and Environmental Ethics: Back Together Again’ in J. Baird Callicott, In Defense of The Land Ethic: Essays in Environmental Philosophy (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press), p. 55.Google Scholar
  13. 23.
    For the classic argument in favour of helping starving strangers, see P. Singer (1972) ‘Famine, Affluence, and Morality’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1, 229–43.Google Scholar
  14. 24.
    J. Baird Callicott (1998) ‘“Back Together Again” Again’, Environmental Values, 7, 461–75, especially, p. 470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 25.
    Y.S. Lo (2001) ‘The Land Ethic and Callicott’s Ethical System (1980–2001): An Overview and Critique’, Inquiry, 44, 331–58, especially, pp. 349–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 26.
    J. Hadley (2007) ‘Critique of Callicott’s Biosocial Moral Theory’, Ethics and the Environment, 12, 67–78, especially p. 75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 28.
    C. Kukathas (1997) ‘Cultural Toleration’ in I. Shapiro and W. Kymlicka (eds) NOMOS XXIX: Ethnicity and Group Rights (New York: New York University Press), p. 87.Google Scholar
  18. 31.
    For two arguments in favour of exemptions for minority groups, but against granting those groups complete license to act as they please, see J. Quong (2006) ‘Cultural Exemptions, Expensive Tastes and Equal Opportunities’, Journal of Applied Philosophy, 23, 53–71; andCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. P. Bou-Habib (2006) ‘A Theory of Religious Accomodation’, Journal of Applied Philosophy, 23, 109–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 32.
    P. Casal (2003) ‘Is Multiculturalism Bad for Animals?’, Journal of Political Philosophy, 11, 1–22, especially p. 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Alasdair Cochrane 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alasdair Cochrane
    • 1
  1. 1.London School of EconomicsUK

Personalised recommendations