TWO PERSPECTIVES ON ANIMAL MORALITY

Are animals moral agents? In this article, a theologian and an anthropologist unite to bring the resources of each field to bear on this question. Alas, not all interdisciplinary conversations end harmoniously, and after much discussion the two authors find themselves in substantial disagreement ove...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Zygon 2018-12, Vol.53 (4), p.953-970
Main Authors: Willows, Adam M., Baynes‐Rock, Marcus
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
animal
Animal welfare
Dialogue
human
Interdisciplinary aspects
judgment
Morality
Obligations
Rationality
relationality
sociality
Theology
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Are animals moral agents? In this article, a theologian and an anthropologist unite to bring the resources of each field to bear on this question. Alas, not all interdisciplinary conversations end harmoniously, and after much discussion the two authors find themselves in substantial disagreement over the answer. The article is therefore presented in two halves, one for each side of the argument. As well as presenting two different positions, our hope is that this article clarifies the different understandings of morality in our respective fields and will help to offset confusion in interdisciplinary dialogue. In what follows, we each present our case. In the first section, Adam Willows argues that moral activity necessarily involves the use of reason, symbolic thought, and language and is on that basis an exclusively human affair. In the second, Marcus Baynes‐Rock discusses his experience of relationality with other creatures; a relationality which, he argues, creates a shared understanding of obligations which are characteristically moral.
ISSN:0591-2385
1467-9744
DOI:10.1111/zygo.12464