Mikhalevich and Powell (2020) argue that it is both scientifically and morally wrong to dismiss the evidence for sentience in invertebrates, though they refrain from offering any insights into how their welfare may be considered or improved. Here, we draw on animal welfare science to make several suggestions on possible ways forward in this area, in particular to avoid the demandingness objection by showing that these need not require overly demanding actions
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...
Invertebrate animals are frequently lumped into a single category and denied welfare protections des...
Mikhalevich & Powell (2020) argue that it is wrong, both scientifically and morally, to dismiss the ...
Welfare protections for vertebrates are grounded in the belief that vertebrates are sentient and cap...
In their target article, Mikhalevich & Powell (M&P) argue that we should extend moral protection to ...
Mikhalevich & Powell (M&P) set up the basic criteria for according moral status equitably, including...
Mikhalevich & Powell (2020) have built on the discussion about which species deserve inclusion in an...
Mikhalevich & Powell (2020) argue that we should attribute moral standing not only to vertebrates bu...
—Commentary on Mikhalevich and Powell on invertebrate minds.— Whether or not arthropods are sentient...
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 are to be commended for challenging the “invertebrate dogma” that invertebrates...
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...
Invertebrate animals are frequently lumped into a single category and denied welfare protections des...
Mikhalevich & Powell (2020) argue that it is wrong, both scientifically and morally, to dismiss the ...
Welfare protections for vertebrates are grounded in the belief that vertebrates are sentient and cap...
In their target article, Mikhalevich & Powell (M&P) argue that we should extend moral protection to ...
Mikhalevich & Powell (M&P) set up the basic criteria for according moral status equitably, including...
Mikhalevich & Powell (2020) have built on the discussion about which species deserve inclusion in an...
Mikhalevich & Powell (2020) argue that we should attribute moral standing not only to vertebrates bu...
—Commentary on Mikhalevich and Powell on invertebrate minds.— Whether or not arthropods are sentient...
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 are to be commended for challenging the “invertebrate dogma” that invertebrates...
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...
Invertebrate animals are frequently lumped into a single category and denied welfare protections des...