The Future of the Political Turn in Animal Ethics
This past week, I had the honor of being included on a panel at the University of Manchester about political considerations that ought to be afforded nonhuman animals. It was arguably one of the most formative and important experiences of my life to date, so I wanted to take some time to reflect on the journey in the form of a blog post.
The People
I have been interested in animal ethics for a considerable amount of time, but it wasn’t until I came across Josh Milburn’s “Robert Nozick on Nonhuman Animals: Rights, Value, and the Meaning of Life” that I started taking seriously the possibility of political responsibility toward (at least some) nonhuman animals. As a libertarian, it gave me a point of entry into understanding how animals could be afforded certain political protections consistent with Nozickian minarchism. Though I am still trying to determine what distinguishes a matter of political justice from a matter of ethical justice, this paper gave me a lot to think about.
The paper referenced the works of Oscar Horta and Will Kymlicka, both of whom I read at length and whose works led me reading Alasdair Cochrane, Steve Cooke, and Robert Garner. When I was perusing this literature, I never thought I would meet these brilliant minds in person. Nor did I think I would be included in a workshop with them where they would listen to the feedback I had to give about their works-in-progress.
I met people whose works I had not been acquainted with until recently, too. I cannot believe that it wasn’t until this event that I became acquainted with the works of Charlotte Blattner, Eze Paez, and Angie Pepper. They are all approaching ethical, political, and legal considerations for nonhuman animals from perspectives I had never been exposed to before. Though I am saddened that I had not known of their contributions to academia before, I look forward to keeping up with the wonderful contributions they make moving forward.
The amazing thing about the Manchester Centre for Political Theory and the workshops they host is that there are so many workshops held at once. Because of this, I had the opportunity to meet and befriend others from panels I was not included on. On the last night of the conference, I had the privilege of grabbing dinner and drinks with the people on the Methodological Challenges to Liberal Egalitarianism panel. As somebody interested in political philosophy beyond the ways in which it reflects and represents the interests of nonhuman animals, I was thankful to have met these wonderful people. I look forward to seeing the contributions they make to academia and seeing where their careers take them.
The Ideas
I was fortunate enough to have been surrounded by some of the smartest people I have ever met. As a consequence, I learned so much. Below are some of the hits. ***None of these ideas are mine, and I explore none of them in great detail in this post for this reason.***
Hate Speech and Animals - If the reason we resent forms of speech regarded as “hate speech” happens to be because of the sense in which the speech undermines one’s status in political society, could it be the case that certain animals could be victims of hate speech? Particularly if these animals are integral to the workings of political society? This discussion particularly called to mind whether hate speech used against somebody who is severely mentally incapacitated and who could not understand the speech themselves, could be thought to have legal standing.
Ecosystem Services vs. Animal Labor - There are two primary ways of offering legal protections to nonhuman animals. The first is by offering them protections and safeguarding their interests as payment for services they provide from which we all benefit, and the second is by offering them protections as laborers with labor rights comparable to that of the kinds of labor rights people want recognized for themselves. Both of these practices have benefits and drawbacks, but which is better if either is?
Kill Shelters - Is it always wrong to engage in non-euthanasia killing at animal shelters? Many animal rights advocates say no, but there may be mitigating circumstances under which non-euthanasia killing is morally justified.
The Oxford Group - In the 1960s and 1970s, an informal academic cohort formed at Oxford University around the conviction that nonhuman animals have moral interests that need to be recognized. The group included the likes of Peter Singer, Ros and Stanley Godlovitch, John Harris, Ruth Harrison, Andrew Linzey, and Brigid Brophy. I didn’t know that the ideas of these individuals were inextricably bound up in one another as they were until this conference.
Rights Grounding - What grounds rights? Sentience? Having interests? Certain capacities? If capacities, do you ground rights in a capacity to suffer? Or something more intricate like a capacity for intellect and reasoning? The implications of each of these different views are vastly different and it’s important to understand why it is that certain beings can be granted rights protections while others aren’t. Particularly, it is important to ask why rights considerations can change over time as in the case of children becoming adults.
Care Ethics - One of the moral theories that is often overlooked in introductory philosophy/ethics courses is the Ethics of Care. To be crude, the Ethics of Care purport that interpersonal relationships are at the core of making proper ethical decisions. At MANCEPT, I had conversations with people who both railed against and embraced care ethics.
Self-Ownership - Do we own ourselves? And if we don’t, who does? Is it possible that we are not the type of thing that can be owned by anyone or anything? If this is the case, why is there no other material thing that has this same kind of standing? Furthermore, can all of our other rights be considered derivative of the right we have in ourselves if we can correctly call ourselves self-owners?
Having the conversations I had and meeting the people I met assured me that the path I am going down is the right one for me. I have never had doubts about my pursuit of academia, but I can say for certain that I have never been as sure that it is what is best for me as I am after having had this experience. I cannot thank everybody I met this past week enough for being a part of the greatest three days of my life to date. Though I am jet-lagged, tired, and stressed, I am looking forward to engaging with all of the ideas I was so fortunate to have exposure to in Manchester.