首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Animals : an Open Access Journal from MDPI >The Speciesism Debate: Intuition Method and Empirical Advances
【2h】

The Speciesism Debate: Intuition Method and Empirical Advances

机译:物种论争:直觉方法和经验进展

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

An influential idea in animal ethics is that moral favouritism towards members of one’s own species is a prejudice. This prejudice has been labelled ‘speciesism’, in analogy with racism and sexism. But not all ethicists subscribe to the view that speciesism is a prejudice. In fact, the tenability of speciesism is a topic of ongoing ethical debate. A recent exchange between Peter Singer and Shelly Kagan might leave the impression that this debate has essentially reached a stalemate, since the disputing parties rely on irreconcilable moral intuitions. In the present article, I argue that this impression is misleading. I highlight both philosophical and empirical research avenues that can help to move the speciesism debate forward, emphasizing that not all ethical intuitions about speciesism should be given equal weight. The article is part of the special issue ‘Animal Ethics: Questioning the Orthodoxy’.
机译:动物伦理学中的一个有影响力的想法是,对自己物种成员的道德偏爱是一种偏见。类似于种族主义和性别歧视,这种偏见被标记为“种属主义”。但是,并非所有的伦理学家都赞成种主义是一种偏见。实际上,物种主义的持久性是正在进行的伦理辩论的主题。彼得·辛格(Peter Singer)和雪莉·卡根(Shelly Kagan)之间最近的一次交流可能会给人留下这样的印象,即这场辩论已基本陷入僵局,因为争端各方依赖于不可调和的道德直觉。在本文中,我认为这种印象具有误导性。我强调哲学和实证研究途径,它们可以帮助推动种族主义的争论,并强调并非所有关于种族主义的道德直觉都应给予同等的重视。这篇文章是“动物伦理学:质疑正统观念”专刊的一部分。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号