AGENDA
- What is relational animal ethics? & more on Gruen (last post)
- Another kind of relational animal ethics: Clare Palmer
Clare Palmer, "Wild and Domesticated Animals"
Section 2 - Key assumptions and Key terms
- Sentience and moral status.
- "sentient" means "having the capacity fo conscious awareness and feeling" p. 8
- "moral status" means simply "that a being's 'interests morally matter to some degree for the entity's own sake'" (p. 9)
- domesticated vs wild (many meanings)
- tame and gentle vs. untamed and aggressive
- living among us vs. living in a wild place
- controlled by humans vs. self-willed or autonomous
- bred by humans vs. not bred by humans (Palmer's meaning)
- Two approaches to animal ethics
- capacity oriented – how to treat animals depends entirely on an animal's capacities
- capacities = internal experiences and interests, individualistic
- context oriented – how to treat animals depends on BOTH capacities AND context
- context = role played by humans in creating the animal, causing the animal's problems [relational]
Section 3 - Capacity and Context Orientation
- Peter Singer and Tom Regan both take capacity approach
- Palmer is arguing for the context approach (p. 11-12)
- you caused the harm to an animal, so you should treat
- you adopted and made the animal dependent, so you have obligations
Section 4--Assisting Wild and Domesticated Animals
- Capacity approach; wild and domesticated animals are the same
- Context approach (Palmer): humans caused domesticated animals to be dependent on them, so we have greater duties to them than to wild animals
Section 5--Assisting Wild Animals We Have Made Vulnerable (p. 14)
- If we have made wild animals vulnerable, do we have a special duty to them?
APPLICATIONS
SCENARIO 1
Do we have the same duty to save the dog and the deer?