Decent conduct toward animals: A traditional approach

Teorema: International Journal of Philosophy 18 (3):61-83 (1999)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The Bishop of Questoriana has recently asked for a pontifical document ‘furnishing a doctrinal foundation of love and respect for life existing on the earth’. Mainstream moralists have urged, since the Axial Era, that it is human life that most demands love and respect. We realize and perfect our own humanity by recognizing humanity in every other, of whatever creed or race. Realizing that biological species are not natural kinds, more recent moralists have hoped to found moral decency either on a respect for ‘rationality’ which excludes many of our conspecifics, or on simple loyalty to our immediate kin. Neither option is without its costs, and Catholic moralists in particular have often been suspicious of a morality that seems to lead to contempt for ordinary human life. Neither advocacy of ‘animal rights’ nor utilitarian calculation of animal pains and pleasures sit well with a traditional Catholic morality. Conversely, many of those who defend traditional practices such as hunting, farming or goading animals to fight, themselves suppose that ‘human’ and ‘animals’ may sometimes inhabit the same moral universe, that there are virtues that both may display in ‘noble action’. Developing this thought, it is possible to locate decency elsewhere than in an over-intellectual respect for ‘reason’. Decent treatment of animals (as of others) is that form of life which lets us live together ‘humanely’, in appreciation of the actual beings they are. Virtue, as Aristotle argued, lies less in acting nobly than in appreciating nobility. Those who claim to appreciate such nobility in beasts must learn to live humanely.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

    This entry is not archived by us. If you are the author and have permission from the publisher, we recommend that you archive it. Many publishers automatically grant permission to authors to archive pre-prints. By uploading a copy of your work, you will enable us to better index it, making it easier to find.

    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 106,168

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

“Our fellow creatures”.Jeff McMahan - 2005 - The Journal of Ethics 9 (3-4):353 - 380.
Kant and Moral Responsibility for Animals.Helga Varden - 2020 - In John J. Callanan & Lucy Allais, Kant and Animals. New York, NY, United States of America: Oxford University Press. pp. 157-175.
How Much Does Slaughter Harm Humanely Raised Animals?Coleman Solis - 2021 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 38 (2):258-272.
On sympathy: With other creatures.Ian Hacking - 2001 - Tijdschrift Voor Filosofie 63 (4):685 - 717.
Humanely Killed?Jeff Johnson - 2015 - Journal of Animal Ethics 5 (2):123-125.
On justifying the exploitation of animals in research.S. F. Sapontzis - 1988 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 13 (2):177-196.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
8 (#1,649,882)

6 months
2 (#1,359,420)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Stephen R. L. Clark
University of Liverpool

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references