I qualify two criticisms made by commentators on Chapman & Huffman’s target article. Responding to the view that differences between humans and other animals are irrelevant to deciding how we should treat other species, I point out that differences between any species in their capacity to suffer are morally relevant. And in response to the claim that suffering is the sole criterion for the moral treatment of animals, I argue that cognitive complexity and a capacity for empathy also have moral relevance to the extent that they influence suffering
Neither sentience nor moral standing is confined to animals with large or human-like brains. Inverte...
Debates in applied ethics about the proper treatment of animals (see ANIMAL RIGHTS; ANIMALS, MORAL S...
Abstract The central question of this article is, Are animals morally responsible for what they do? ...
We should treat sentient nonhuman animals as worthy of moral consideration, not because we share an ...
What criteria can we legitimately use to judge moral worth? What morally relevant differences or sim...
Marino & Merskin’s target article on the cognitive and psychological capacities of sheep commendably...
This article provides an empirically based, interdisciplinary approach to the following two question...
Moral and political philosophers no longer condemn harm inflicted on nonhuman animals as self-eviden...
Identifying specific traits to justify according differential moral status to humans and non-human a...
The basis of having a direct moral obligation to an entity is that what we do to that entity matters...
Chapman & Huffman argue that humans inflict cruelty without apparent concern because of their catego...
Entities that possess moral standing can be wronged and deserve our moral consideration. Past perspe...
Chapman & Huffman’s moral analysis fails to prove that the exploitation of animals or the environmen...
I commend Mikhalevich & Powell for extending the discussion of cognition and its relation to moral s...
Humans have long considered themselves unique in the animal kingdom. However, assumptions about huma...
Neither sentience nor moral standing is confined to animals with large or human-like brains. Inverte...
Debates in applied ethics about the proper treatment of animals (see ANIMAL RIGHTS; ANIMALS, MORAL S...
Abstract The central question of this article is, Are animals morally responsible for what they do? ...
We should treat sentient nonhuman animals as worthy of moral consideration, not because we share an ...
What criteria can we legitimately use to judge moral worth? What morally relevant differences or sim...
Marino & Merskin’s target article on the cognitive and psychological capacities of sheep commendably...
This article provides an empirically based, interdisciplinary approach to the following two question...
Moral and political philosophers no longer condemn harm inflicted on nonhuman animals as self-eviden...
Identifying specific traits to justify according differential moral status to humans and non-human a...
The basis of having a direct moral obligation to an entity is that what we do to that entity matters...
Chapman & Huffman argue that humans inflict cruelty without apparent concern because of their catego...
Entities that possess moral standing can be wronged and deserve our moral consideration. Past perspe...
Chapman & Huffman’s moral analysis fails to prove that the exploitation of animals or the environmen...
I commend Mikhalevich & Powell for extending the discussion of cognition and its relation to moral s...
Humans have long considered themselves unique in the animal kingdom. However, assumptions about huma...
Neither sentience nor moral standing is confined to animals with large or human-like brains. Inverte...
Debates in applied ethics about the proper treatment of animals (see ANIMAL RIGHTS; ANIMALS, MORAL S...
Abstract The central question of this article is, Are animals morally responsible for what they do? ...