Add to ORKGMikhalevich & Powell (2020) argue that it is wrong, both scientifically and morally, to dismiss the evidence for sentience in invertebrates. They do not offer any examples, however, of how their welfare should be considered or improved. We draw on animal welfare science to suggest some ways that would not be excessively demanding
Invertebrates are far more numerous than vertebrates. Most of them are essential to the survival of ...
Speciesism should play no role in determining welfare outcomes. Cognition may vary within species as...
Mikhalevich & Powell argue that the exclusion of the vast majority of arthropods from moral standing...
Mikhalevich & Powell (2020) argue that it is wrong, both scientifically and morally, to dismiss the ...
Mikhalevich and Powell (2020) argue that it is both scientifically and morally wrong to dismiss the ...
Welfare protections for vertebrates are grounded in the belief that vertebrates are sentient and cap...
Mikhalevich & Powell (M&P) set up the basic criteria for according moral status equitably, including...
—Commentary on Mikhalevich and Powell on invertebrate minds.— Whether or not arthropods are sentient...
In their target article, Mikhalevich & Powell (M&P) argue that we should extend moral protection to ...
Mikhalevich & Powell (2020) argue that we should attribute moral standing not only to vertebrates bu...
Mikhalevich & Powell (2020) have built on the discussion about which species deserve inclusion in an...
Mikhalevich & Powell provide convincing empirical evidence that at least some invertebrates are sent...
There is no way to include invertebrates within the moral sphere without being “extreme” — to use Mi...
Mikhalevich & Powell are to be commended for challenging the “invertebrate dogma” that invertebrates...
Invertebrates are far more numerous than vertebrates. Most of them are essential to the survival of ...
Speciesism should play no role in determining welfare outcomes. Cognition may vary within species as...
Mikhalevich & Powell argue that the exclusion of the vast majority of arthropods from moral standing...
Mikhalevich & Powell (2020) argue that it is wrong, both scientifically and morally, to dismiss the ...
Mikhalevich and Powell (2020) argue that it is both scientifically and morally wrong to dismiss the ...
Welfare protections for vertebrates are grounded in the belief that vertebrates are sentient and cap...
Mikhalevich & Powell (M&P) set up the basic criteria for according moral status equitably, including...
—Commentary on Mikhalevich and Powell on invertebrate minds.— Whether or not arthropods are sentient...
In their target article, Mikhalevich & Powell (M&P) argue that we should extend moral protection to ...
Mikhalevich & Powell (2020) argue that we should attribute moral standing not only to vertebrates bu...
Mikhalevich & Powell (2020) have built on the discussion about which species deserve inclusion in an...
Mikhalevich & Powell provide convincing empirical evidence that at least some invertebrates are sent...
There is no way to include invertebrates within the moral sphere without being “extreme” — to use Mi...
Mikhalevich & Powell are to be commended for challenging the “invertebrate dogma” that invertebrates...
Invertebrates are far more numerous than vertebrates. Most of them are essential to the survival of ...
Speciesism should play no role in determining welfare outcomes. Cognition may vary within species as...
Mikhalevich & Powell argue that the exclusion of the vast majority of arthropods from moral standing...