Weighing Animal Lives: A Critical Assessment of Justification - DiVA

345 Pages·2009·1.71 MB·English

by  Fredrik Karlsson

ACTA UNIVERSITATIS UPSALIENSIS
Uppsala Studies in Social Ethics 38
Fredrik Karlsson

Weighing Animal Lives

A Critical Assessment of Justification and Prioritization
in Animal-Rights Theories

Uppsala 2009
Dissertation presented at Uppsala University to be publicly examined in Ihresalen, Thunbergs-
vägen 3B, Campus Engelska Parken, Uppsala University, Friday, 25 September, 2009 at 10.15
a.m. for the degree of Doctor of Theology. The examination will be conducted in English.

Abstract
Karlsson, F. 2009. Weighing Animal Lives: A Critical Assessment of Justification and Prioriti-
zation in Animal-Rights Theories. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Uppsala Studies in Social
Ethics 38. 341 pp. Uppsala. ISBN 978-91-554-7576-5.

The project underlying this dissertation aims at analyzing three pro-animal-rights theories,
evaluating the theories, and outlining an alternative theoretical account of animal rights. The
analytical categories are justification and function of animal rights, the definition of the right
holder, and the resolution approach to rights conflict. The categories are applied to a natural, a
theocentric, and a contractarian approach to defend animal rights. The evaluation is substantiated
by the assumption that rights are meant to protect less powerful beings against more powerful
aggressors. The constructive segment is an investigation into what extent identified disadvan-
tages of the theories can be avoided by outlining a new model for animal rights.
The analyses and evaluation suggest that all three theories are at risk of contradicting the
proper function of rights-based theories. Tom Regan’s naturalist account of animal rights in-
cludes a logical possibility to sacrifice less capable beings for the sake of more capable beings.
Andrew Linzey’s theocentric case for animal rights may sometimes mean that vulnerable human
persons should be sacrificed for more powerful non-human beings. Mark Rowlands’ outlined
contractarian model, further reconstructed in this work, fails to provide a way to resolve rights
conflicts, making the function of rights inapplicable to conflicts.
In conclusion, it is suggested that defining the right holder as a self-preservative being can
be supported by, at least, the contractarian rationale. That would also conform to the proper
function of rights-based theories. It is also suggested that this means that rights conflicts should
be resolved by a voluntary sacrifice of the most powerful being. Practical circumstances should
be created where such voluntarity is both genuine and rationally possible.

Keywords: Animal rights, justification, prioritization, applied ethics, proper function, justice,
rights language, vivisection, rights conflict

Fredrik Karlsson, Ethics and Philosophy of Religion, Box 511, Uppsala University,
SE-751 20 Uppsala, Sweden

© Fredrik Karlsson 2009

ISSN 0346-6507
ISBN 978-91-554-7576-5

urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-107288 (http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-107288)

Printed in Sweden by Edita Västra Aros, Västerås 2009.
Distributor: Uppsala University Library, Box 510, SE- 751 20 Uppsala
www.uu.se,
Contents
Acknowledgements.............................................................................. 9
Introduction........................................................................................ 11
The purpose and problems ............................................................ 15
Rights language ........................................................................ 16
Justification of animal rights .................................................... 17
The right holder ........................................................................ 18
Function of rights ..................................................................... 19
Rights conflicts ......................................................................... 20
Evaluative criteria ......................................................................... 23
Intersubjectivity ........................................................................ 24
Applicability ............................................................................. 27
Proper function ......................................................................... 29
Reading ......................................................................................... 32
Materials........................................................................................ 35
Previous research .......................................................................... 39
Outline........................................................................................... 41
1. Rights Language and Animals ....................................................... 43
The concepts of rights applied to the animal case......................... 45
Rights and powers .................................................................... 46
The claim-right view and the entitlement view ........................ 52
The function of rights.................................................................... 57
The good for animals................................................................ 62
Moral justification......................................................................... 65
Three kinds of moral justification ............................................ 68
The right holder............................................................................. 71
Conflicts of rights.......................................................................... 74
The bundle of right to life......................................................... 77
The complexity of rights in conflict ......................................... 79
Maximizing and non-maximizing resolution approaches......... 80
Equality and rights conflicts ..................................................... 84
Summary ....................................................................................... 85
2. Natural Animal Rights ................................................................... 87
Non-human animal consciousness ................................................ 88
A common nature for human and non-human animals............. 89
The belief–desire theory and common preference-beliefs........ 95
A natural justification of animal rights ....................................... 101
The theoretical basis for evaluating moral principles............. 103
The harm principle.................................................................. 105
The respect principle .............................................................. 107
The right to respectful treatment............................................. 109
The function of the right to respect ............................................. 111
Animal autonomy ................................................................... 111
The good for animals.............................................................. 112
Harm....................................................................................... 115
Respectful treatment ............................................................... 117
The right holder........................................................................... 118
The subject-of-a-life and inherent value................................. 119
The subject-of-a-life as a new view of animals ...................... 120
Subject-of-a-life and analogies ............................................... 121
Conflict resolution and the natural-rights approach .................... 125
The miniride principle ............................................................ 125
The worse-off principle .......................................................... 128
Special considerations ............................................................ 130
Summary ..................................................................................... 132
3. Theocentric Animal Rights .......................................................... 135
The Christian background ........................................................... 136
Theocentric Christian ethics ................................................... 136
Doctrine of creation ................................................................ 139
Christology ............................................................................. 143
To serve God is to liberate the creation .................................. 145
A theocentric justification of animal rights................................. 148
The function of theocentric animal rights ................................... 154
The right holder........................................................................... 158
The reverence for life ............................................................. 158
Animals in the moral community ........................................... 160
The role of humankind ........................................................... 161
Against sentientism................................................................. 163
Instrumental value or inherent value ...................................... 165
Conflict resolution and theocentric animal rights ....................... 168
Against equality...................................................................... 169
For generosity ......................................................................... 169
For generosity, because of equality ........................................ 171
Summary ..................................................................................... 173
4. Contractarian Animal Rights ....................................................... 176
Contractarianism and liberal thought .......................................... 176
Liberalism............................................................................... 178
Modern notions of the social contract .................................... 182
The Rawlsian notion of the social contract............................. 185
A contractarian justification of animal rights.............................. 190
Contractors and beneficiaries ................................................. 191
Intuitive equality and the social contract ................................ 192
Upsetting the status quo.......................................................... 194
The function of contractarian animal rights ................................ 198
Rational goodness for animals................................................ 201
The right holder........................................................................... 207
Sentience and the original position......................................... 209
The self-interested beneficiary ............................................... 212
Conflict resolution and contractarian animal rights .................... 213
The difference principle in the animal case ............................ 214
Summary ..................................................................................... 220
5. Hypothetical Application and Evaluation ..................................... 223
Comparisons................................................................................ 224
Justification of rights .............................................................. 226
Function of rights ................................................................... 228
The right holder ...................................................................... 230
The resolution approaches to rights conflicts ......................... 232
Hypothetical application of the theories...................................... 234
Natural rights for animals and life–life conflicts .................... 235
Theocentric rights for animals and life–life conflicts............. 242
Contractarian rights for animals and life–life conflicts .......... 247
Evaluating the theories and their functions ................................. 254
The natural-rights approach.................................................... 256
The theocentric approach........................................................ 262
The contractarian approach .................................................... 266
Summary of the evaluation ......................................................... 272
6. Animals and Persistent Rights Conflicts...................................... 274
The problem of persistent rights conflicts................................... 276
A demystification of the animal .................................................. 280
Proper function and justification ................................................. 284
The proper environment of a rights-based theory................... 287
The property of being exposed.................................................... 289
The property of self-preservation ........................................... 291
The link between self-preservation and exposure .................. 298
The inclusion of all life........................................................... 301
Identifying particular goods ........................................................ 305
Perceiving the good for animals ............................................. 305
Capabilities as goods .............................................................. 308
Capabilities and non-human beings........................................ 311
Capabilities are assessable and quantifiable ........................... 313
Capabilities are commensurable ............................................. 314
The function of rights ............................................................. 316
Resolving persistent rights conflicts ........................................... 317
The capabilities approach and animal experiments ................ 321
Defining the experimentee...................................................... 326
Summary ..................................................................................... 331
Bibliography .................................................................................... 334
Index ................................................................................................ 340
Acknowledgements
This work would not have been possible without the supervision of
Carl-Henric Grenholm and Per Sundman. Carl-Henric’s experienced
and persistent assistance with the outline and the methodology, and
Per’s skill for subtle distinctions and new thoughts have affected the
reasoning much more than the footnotes show. They have both
showed quite necessary and far-reaching patience with me.
The ethics research seminar at Uppsala University has been my
point of reference. I am especially indebted to Elena Namli, David
Kronlid, Göran Lantz, Kerstin Andersson, and Lars Löfquist for hav-
ing read and commented on various parts of the text. Helena Röck-
linsberg has read and commented on the first draft of the project de-
scription, but also a draft of the entire manuscript. Anders Kraal and
Johannes Pulkkanen have also read and commented on parts of the
manuscript.
The Ethiek Instituut at Universiteit Utrecht received me as a guest
researcher for six months. Part of this manuscript was discussed at the
intellectually quite-colourful colloquium of practical philosophy. I am
also especially indebted to Prof. Dr. Robert Heeger, Prof. Dr. Marcus
Düwell, Dr. Jan Vorstenbosch, Dr. Theo Boer, and Frederike Kalde-
waij who read and commented on various drafts on other occasions.
Part of this work has been discussed at the interdisciplinary re-
search forum of the Center of Sustainable Development in Uppsala.
The center has also been helpful in developing my insights into expo-
sure, important for the conclusions of this work.
The Swedish Institute and the Nordic Library in Athens provided a
recreational environment for the editing phase. The project has also
been financially supported by the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Founda-
tion, the Carnegie Foundation, and the Olaus Petri Foundation.

Uppsala, September 2009
Fredrik Karlsson
9