Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
NanoEthics
Erschienen in: NanoEthics 1/2014

01.04.2014 | Original Paper

Making Better Sense of Animal Disenhancement: A Reply to Henschke

verfasst von: Marcus Schultz-Bergin

Erschienen in: NanoEthics | Ausgabe 1/2014

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

In "Making Sense of Animal Disenhancement" Adam Henschke provides a framework for fully understanding and evaluating animal disenhancement. His conclusion is that animal disenhancement is neither morally nor pragmatically justified. In this paper I argue that Henschke misapplies his own framework for understanding disenhancement, resulting in a stronger conclusion than is justified. In diagnosing his misstep, I argue that the resources he has provided us, combined with my refinements, result in two new avenues for inquiry: an application of concepts from political theory to disenhancement, and an inquiry in to the mode of valuation that underlies industrial animal agriculture and disenhancement proposals.
Vorheriger Artikel Exploring Societal and Ethical Views of Nanotechnology REUs
Nächster Artikel Artificial Life and Ethics

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Fußnoten
1
I would like to thank an anonymous referee for encouraging me to explore this issue in more detail.
 
2
In particular, various studies have shown a link between the affective dimension of pain and the AC1 and AC8 enzymes, the peptide P311, and the SCN9A gene [34, 31, 3].
 
3
The assumption, noted explicitly by Shriver in reference to a personal communication with one of the scientists working with the ‘knockout mice’ is that at least some of the genes, peptides or enzymes relevant to the affective dimension of pain in mice will ‘play a similar role in all mammals.’ [27: 118]
 
4
I would like to thank an anonymous referee for encouraging me to note some of the underlying assumptions at work in these proposals that may be making it easier to reach the conclusion that disenhancement is justified.
 
5
It should be noted, as indicated to me by an anonymous referee, that disenhancement has also been discussed in the context of companion animals, but of course the reasons are likely much different in such cases.
 
6
Interestingly, the success of this argument depends on it taking quite a bit of time to travel the hundreds of kilometers to Chicago, and an assumption that the paperclips are not worth such a journey. Were there to be a very quick mode of transportation that took Jack to Chicago in, say, 5 min, then it is possible that buying paperclips would make sense of the action. This seems to strengthen Henschke and Korsgaard’s claim that context matters, but even the wider context matters—that our modes of transport are such that hundreds of kilometers is a lengthy journey is relevant to determining which reason makes sense of the action.
 
7
It is important to note here that there is not a clear settled position on what the ideal/non-ideal distinction is, but rather a family of various ways to deploy the distinction. So I do not intend to claim that this is the ideal/non-ideal distinction, but is rather one version of that distinction. For more on the complexities and vagueness of the ideal/nonideal distinction see, e.g., [28].
 
8
This is clear from Shriver’s deployment of Singer’s argument. Shriver’s argument for disenhancement takes the basic principle of reducing unnecessary suffering that Singer uses, but combines it with the empirical claim that meat consumption will continue in order to justify his conclusion. However, Ferrari has offered an alternative reading of Singer’s view that she believes avoids this result [5: 71]. I have my doubts about animals having the conceptual capacity to have a preference for a ‘Peopled Universe’ rather than a ‘Nonsentient one’, and thus disagree with Ferrari’s analysis on this point.
 
9
Of course this does not mean that all-things-considered the racist’s preference wins out.
 
10
Ferrari [5] has rightly noted that Regan does discuss his own ‘kingdom of ends’—a regulative ideal of what the world would look like if we interacted with animals appropriately [22]. It looks as though such an ideal could work exactly as I am discussing here, but I am skeptical that Regan’s theory provides any resources for us to use that regulative ideal when deciding whether or not an action such as disenhancement is permissible. For Regan, as for most deontologists, it seems we evaluate such an action not based on how close it is to the ideal but rather whether any wrongs are committed in a more narrow sense. This is especially true given the agent focus of most deontological theories.
 
11
To clarify: we often reflect on historical instances of oppressed peoples fighting an unjust system and evaluate their actions (or at least some of them) positively, even if they include violence or other actions that would not be approved of in circumstances that do not involve oppression or injustice. So my point is much like Henschke’s regarding a soldier fighting a just war—an action that is generally evaluated negatively may be positively evaluated once certain contextual features are brought to light.
 
Literatur
1.
Anderson E (1995) Value in ethics and economics. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
2.
Bhat ZF, Bhat H (2011) Animal-free meat biofabrication. Am J Food Technol 6(6):441–459CrossRef
3.
Cox JJ et al (2006) An SCN9A channelopathy causes congenital inability to experience pain. Nature 444:894–898CrossRef
4.
Donaldson S, Kymlicka W (2011) Zoopolis: a political theory of animal rights. Oxford University Press, New York
5.
Ferrari A (2012) Animal disenhancement for animal welfare: the apparent philosophical conundrums and the real exploitation of animals. A response to Thompson and Palmer. NanoEthics 6(1):65–76CrossRef
6.
Foltz EL, White LE (1962) Pain relief by frontal cingulotomy. J Neurosurg 19:89–100CrossRef
7.
Gardner RM, Goldberg AM (2007) Pain-free animals: an acceptable refinement? Jpn Soc Altern Anim Exp 14:145–149
8.
Gavrell Ortiz SE (2004) Beyond welfare: animal integrity, animal dignity, and genetic engineering. Ethics Environ 9(1):94–120
9.
Gifford F (2002) Biotechnology. In: Comstock G (ed) Life science ethics. Iowa State, Ames, pp 191–224
10.
Global Perspectives Study Unit (2006) World agriculture: towards 2030/2050 interim report. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United. Nations, Rome
11.
Grandin T (2013) Making slaughterhouses more humane for cattle, pigs, and sheep. Annu Rev Anim Biosci 1:491–512CrossRef
12.
Hadley J (2012) Confining ‘Disenhanced’ animals. NanoEthics 6(1):41–46CrossRef
13.
Henschke A (2012) Making sense of animal disenhancement. NanoEthics 6(1):55–64CrossRef
14.
Hongladarom S (2012) The disenhancement problem in agriculture: a reply to Thompson. NanoEthics 6(1):47–54CrossRef
15.
16.
17.
Korsgaard CM (2009) Self-constitution: agency, identity, and integrity. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRef
18.
Lein ES et al (2007) Genome-wide atlas of gene expression in the adult mouse brain. Nature 445:168–176CrossRef
19.
Maslow A (1966) The psychology of science. Joanna Cotler Books
20.
Palmer C (2011) Animal disenhancement and the non-identity problem: a response to Thompson. NanoEthics 5(1):43–48CrossRef
21.
Pluhar EB (2010) Meat and morality: alternatives to factory farming. J Agric Environ Ethics 23(5):455–468CrossRef
22.
Regan T (1983) The case for animal rights. The University of California Press, Berkeley
23.
Roberts P (2008) The end of food: the coming crisis in the world food industry. Bloomsbury, London
24.
Romanelli P et al (2004) Ablative procedures for chronic pain. Neurosurg Clin N Am 15:335–342CrossRef
25.
Sandler R (2010) Ethical theory and the problem of inconsequentialism: why environmental ethicists should be virtue-oriented ethicists. J Agric Environ Ethics 23:167–183CrossRef
26.
Sandøe PB, Nielsen L, Christen LG, Sørensen P (1999) Staying good while playing God—the ethics of breeding farm animals. Anim Welf 8:313–328
27.
Shriver A (2009) Knocking out pain in livestock: can technology succeed where morality has stalled? Neuroethics 2(3):115–124CrossRef
28.
Simmons AJ (2010) Ideal and nonideal theory. Philos Public Aff 38(1):5–36CrossRef
29.
Singer P (2002) Animal liberation. HarperCollins, New York
30.
Smith KK (2012) Governing animals: animal welfare and the liberal state. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRef
31.
Sun Y et al (2008) Involvement of P311 in the affective, but not in the sensory component of pain. Mol Pain 4:23CrossRef
32.
Thompson P (2008) The opposite of human enhancement: nanotechnology and the blind chicken problem. NanoEthics 2(3):305–316CrossRef
33.
Weary DM et al (2006) Identifying and preventing pain in animals. Appl Anim Behav Sci 100(1–2):64–76CrossRef
34.
Wei F et al (2002) Genetic elimination of behavioral sensitization in mice lacking calmodulin-stimulated adenylyl cyclases. Neuron 36:713–726CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Making Better Sense of Animal Disenhancement: A Reply to Henschke
verfasst von
Marcus Schultz-Bergin
Publikationsdatum
01.04.2014
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
NanoEthics / Ausgabe 1/2014
Print ISSN: 1871-4757
Elektronische ISSN: 1871-4765
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-014-0190-1

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2014

NanoEthics 1/2014 Zur Ausgabe

Original Paper

The Clinical Research of Nanomedicine: A New Ethical Challenge?

Original Paper

Is There a Moral Obligation to Develop Brain Implants Involving NanoBionic Technologies? Ethical Issues for Clinical Trials

Original Paper

Valuing Values: Better Public Engagement on Nanotechnology Demands a Better Understanding of the Diversity of Publics

Original Paper

Characteristics, Properties and Ethical Issues of Carbon Nanotubes in Biomedical Applications

Critical Discussion Notes

Artificial Life and Ethics

Original Paper

Exploring Societal and Ethical Views of Nanotechnology REUs