Papers by Paola Cavalieri
The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1995
International Studies in Philosophy, 2004
The Death of the Animal, 2009
Acknowledgments Introduction Part I: Incorporating New Ethical Traditions Chapter 1: Imagining a ... more Acknowledgments Introduction Part I: Incorporating New Ethical Traditions Chapter 1: Imagining a World without the Violation of Animals by Drucilla Cornell Chapter 2: Animal Rights and Kantian Ethics by Julian H. Franklin Chapter 3: A Place for Animals in the Kingdom of Ends by Heather M. Kendrick Chapter 4: Interspecies Cosmopolitanism: Animal Rights without Metaphysical Foundations by Eduardo Mendieta Chapter 5: C.S. Lewis's Theology of Animals by Andrew Linzey Part II: Extending and Critiquing the Discourse Chapter 6: The Ruses of Reason: Strategies of Exclusion Paola Cavalieri Chapter 7: Ideology in Animal Rights Advocacy: Sound Ethics, Dubious Practices by Rod Preece Chapter 8: Animal Rights and Social Relations by Ted Benton Chapter 9: The Problem with Commodifying Animals by Gregory R. Smulewicz-Zucker Part III: Developing New Ethical Grounds Chapter 10: Why We Have Ethical Obligations to Animals: Animal Welfare and the Common Good by Michael J. Thompson Chapter 11: Relating to Animals in Space and Time: An Exercise in Moral Imagination by Michael Allen Fox Chapter 12: Navigating Difference (again): Animal Ethics and Entangled Empathy by Lori Gruen Chapter 13: Toward a Properly Post-Humanist Ethos of Somatic Sympathy by Ralph R. Acampora Chapter 14: Animal Ethics and Recollection by Bernard Rollin Appendix: Voices for Animals: A Fantasy on Animal Representation by Peter Sloterdijk (Translated by Lisa Marie Anderson) Index List of Contributors
Aristotle refers to human slaves as 'animated property'. The phrase exactly describes the current... more Aristotle refers to human slaves as 'animated property'. The phrase exactly describes the current status of nonhuman animals. Human slavery therefore presents an enlightening parallel to this situation. We shall explore this parallel in order to single out a past response to human slavery that may suggest a suitable way of responding to present-day animal slavery. Not long ago such a parallel would have been considered outrageous. Recently, however, there has been growing recognition of the claim that a sound ethic must be free of bias or arbitrary discrimination based in favour of our own species. This recognition makes possible a more impartial appraisal of the exploitative practices that mark our civilisation. Slavery in the ancient world has been the subject of a lively debate among historians. How did it arise? Why did it end? Was there a characteristic 'slave mode of production'? We do not need to go into all these disputes. We shall focus instead on the distinctive element of slavery: the fact that the human being becomes property in the strict sense of the term. This is sometimes referred to as 'chattel slavery'-a term that stresses the parallel between the human institution, and the ownership of animals, for the term 'cattle' is derived from 'chattel'. Slave societies are those societies of which chattel slavery is a major feature. They are relatively rare in human history. The best known examples existed in the ancient world, and in North and Central America after European colonisation.
Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, 1995
Is it consistent to accept ethical constraints on scientific research when humans are involved, a... more Is it consistent to accept ethical constraints on scientific research when humans are involved, and to reject them when it comes to non-humans? Is the current scientific practice of experimenting on sentient animals a “necessary evil” which must simply be tolerated, or is it an indefensible practice stemming from arbitrary discrimination based on species? These are some of the questions we address in this paper, in order to illustrate the implications for scientific experimentation of the first attempt to grant to some non-human beings the basic rights which have so far been limited to members of our own species. Resulting from the recent rethinking on the moral status of animals, this attempt revolves around the collective argument for the enfranchisement of chimpanzees, gorillas and orang-utans that, together with a distinguished group of scientists and philosophers, we have presented in The Great Ape Project. We draw from this volume some of the evidence that ethologists, languag...
Philosophy and the Politics of Animal Liberation, 2016
Those aiming at the liberation of nonhuman animals must confront the combined effects of the ingr... more Those aiming at the liberation of nonhuman animals must confront the combined effects of the ingrained ideology of human superiority and of capitalism as mode of production based on global commodification. In the face of this scenario, Cavalieri claims, two approaches—the Frankfurtians’ Critical theory, with its challenge to the reifying power of instrumental reason, and Pierre Bourdieu’s Reflexive sociology, with its deconstruction of the symbolic violence of the dominant—might offer some guidance. For, through their common stress on the essential role of theory as an instrument able both to interpret reality and to modify it, they can provide a unified perspective whose theoretical insights and suggestions for praxis may be profitably adapted to the context of the animal question.
El Proyecto Gran Simio La Igualdad Mas Alla De La Humanidad 1998 Isbn 84 8164 196 0 Pags 379 390, 1998
Between the Species: An Online Journal for the Study of Philosophy and Animals, 1990
Developments in Primatology: Progress and Prospects
In the seventeenth century Rene Descartes argued for a fundamental separation between human and n... more In the seventeenth century Rene Descartes argued for a fundamental separation between human and nonhuman animals, a separation reflecting the sharp distinction he drew on a more general level between thought and matter. While we have bodies and minds, animals only have bodies, and thus are locked into the inferior realm of matter. This absolute separation between humans and animals underlies the absolute dismissal, in Western thought, of animals from the sphere of moral concern. But Cartesianism is not the only doctrine in the history of Western moral philosophy that denies animals any intrinsic moral status. Kant’s moral philosophy also makes a radical break between rational beings and the domain of mere things, which includes animals. Kant argues that because only humans have reason and can be autonomous, only humans are ends in themselves. All other things, including all nonhuman animals, are mere means to human ends. True, Kant finds an indirect argument against cruelty to animals based on the claim that those who are cruel to animals may end up being cruel to humans as well, but this counts for very little, given Kant’s denial that the suffering of an animal is, in itself, a reason not to be cruel to it. As recently as 1992, the French philosopher Luc Ferry showed the continuing influence of Kant’s perspective when he defended the idea of a sharp moral distinction between
The Philosophers' Magazine, 2005
Mouvements, 2006
Distribution électronique Cairn.info pour La Découverte. © La Découverte. Tous droits réservés po... more Distribution électronique Cairn.info pour La Découverte. © La Découverte. Tous droits réservés pour tous pays. La reproduction ou représentation de cet article, notamment par photocopie, n'est autorisée que dans les limites des conditions générales d'utilisation du site ou, le cas échéant, des conditions générales de la licence souscrite par votre établissement. Toute autre reproduction ou représentation, en tout ou partie, sous quelque forme et de quelque manière que ce soit, est interdite sauf accord préalable et écrit de l'éditeur, en dehors des cas prévus par la législation en vigueur en France. Il est précisé que son stockage dans une base de données est également interdit.
The Animal Question, 2002
Finally, I argue that we already have at our disposal a theory that settles some of the moral que... more Finally, I argue that we already have at our disposal a theory that settles some of the moral questions of a decent coexistence, namely, human rights doctrine. I suggest that basic human rights have three main features: they are political and institutional in character; they refer to narrow morality and are thus negative rights; they are not justified by reference to rationality, self‐consciousness, or any other ”higher” characteristics, but instead by reference to the mere intentionality of the individual. In the light of the moral irrelevance of species membership, I conclude that consistency demands that we expand human rights doctrine to include all those intentional animals whom we currently treat as little more than mere things, and that we alter our institutions accordingly.
The Animal Question, 2002
The way being open to reconsider in an impartial way the moral status of the members of other spe... more The way being open to reconsider in an impartial way the moral status of the members of other species, I offer a critical survey of the main attempts to do so within the field of animal liberation ethics. After distinguishing between obligations concerning welfare and obligations concerning the continuation of life, I examine Peter Singer's utilitarian stance, Tom Regan's deontological view, and David DeGrazia's mixed approach. Though agreeing with these authors as far as equal consideration for the interest in welfare is concerned, I raise doubts about their settling on unequal consideration for the interest in life, and I point to difficulties with formulating an acceptable theory of overall moral status. I end the survey with a discussion of the notion of personhood, which is found unable to overcome such difficulties.
Uploads
Papers by Paola Cavalieri