Scholarlink

In recent years, there has been a rise of empirical approaches to ethics, particularly within medical ethics and bioethics, where emerging fields such as empirical bioethics propose to use qualitative research methods to inform normative analysis. Such methods, it is argued, can give bioethicists a thicker, more contextual basis for settling complex moral issues. So far, however, there has been little discussion of potential uses of such contextual approaches in animal ethics. Whereas we can interview patients and conduct focus groups with stakeholders, we cannot ask animals about their values and opinions. However, there are reasons to believe that empirical research methods can constitute useful tools in this field as well. This chapter uses the case of, genome editing of animals to make this point. On traditional approaches to animal ethics, matters of moral status are settled on the basis of capacities such as having interests or the ability to suffer (Singer) or on what their rights are as ‘subjects-of-a-life’ (Regan). In the case of genome editing, neither of these approaches seems able to capture what is at stake. For example, while genome editing can be used to reduce suffering, there may still be other reasons why its use could be considered morally objectionable. The chapter takes as its departure the work of Cora Diamond, who has argued that we cannot determine how we ought to treat animals based on what characteristics they have and that we should rather consider the role they play in our lives as our ‘fellow creatures’. On her account, what animals are is not given to us independently of our ways of thinking about and responding to them. This opens up a space for exploring practices, values and traditions connected to our relationships with animals. The chapter argues that qualitative research methods can serve as useful tools to gain insight into these contexts, providing a normative basis for determining whether the use of genome editing technologies is compatible with a respectful treatment of animals.

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

On Experience in Animal Ethics: Reflective Empiricism and Contextual Ethics

  • 章节

  • 发表日期：

    2025年

查看全文
  • Hannah Winther

摘要

In recent years, there has been a rise of empirical approaches to ethics, particularly within medical ethics and bioethics, where emerging fields such as empirical bioethics propose to use qualitative research methods to inform normative analysis. Such methods, it is argued, can give bioethicists a thicker, more contextual basis for settling complex moral issues. So far, however, there has been little discussion of potential uses of such contextual approaches in animal ethics. Whereas we can interview patients and conduct focus groups with stakeholders, we cannot ask animals about their values and opinions. However, there are reasons to believe that empirical research methods can constitute useful tools in this field as well. This chapter uses the case of, genome editing of animals to make this point. On traditional approaches to animal ethics, matters of moral status are settled on the basis of capacities such as having interests or the ability to suffer (Singer) or on what their rights are as ‘subjects-of-a-life’ (Regan). In the case of genome editing, neither of these approaches seems able to capture what is at stake. For example, while genome editing can be used to reduce suffering, there may still be other reasons why its use could be considered morally objectionable. The chapter takes as its departure the work of Cora Diamond, who has argued that we cannot determine how we ought to treat animals based on what characteristics they have and that we should rather consider the role they play in our lives as our ‘fellow creatures’. On her account, what animals are is not given to us independently of our ways of thinking about and responding to them. This opens up a space for exploring practices, values and traditions connected to our relationships with animals. The chapter argues that qualitative research methods can serve as useful tools to gain insight into these contexts, providing a normative basis for determining whether the use of genome editing technologies is compatible with a respectful treatment of animals.