Why Keep a Dog and Bark Yourself? Making Choices for Non‐Human Animals.
Abstract: Animals are usually considered to lack the status of autonomous agents. Nevertheless, they do appear to make ostensible choices. This article considers whether, and how, I should respect animals' choices. I propose a concept of volitionality which can be respected if, and insofar as, doing...
| Published in: | Journal of Applied Philosophy Vol. 35; no. 1; pp. 168 - 186 |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Article |
| Published: |
Wiley-Blackwell
Feb2018
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | View this record in EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=127818559&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 127818559 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 02643758 BQ0 jtl: Journal of Applied Philosophy issn: 02643758 maglogo: Y pubinfo: dt: Feb2018 vid: 35 iid: 1 pid: 480 pub: Wiley-Blackwell artinfo: ui: 127818559 10.1111/japp.12155 ppf: 168 ppct: 18 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P size: 506KB tig: atl: Why Keep a Dog and Bark Yourself? Making Choices for Non‐Human Animals. aug: au: Yeates, James W. affil: RSPCA, Wilberforce Way, Southwater, Horsham, West Sussex, RH13 9RS, UK Centre for Ethics in Medicine, University of Bristol, UK su: Animal behavior Choice (Psychology) Decision making Will Subjectivity Human behavior sug: subj: Animal behavior Choice (Psychology) Decision making Will Subjectivity Human behavior ab: Abstract: Animals are usually considered to lack the status of autonomous agents. Nevertheless, they do appear to make ostensible choices. This article considers whether, and how, I should respect animals' choices. I propose a concept of volitionality which can be respected if, and insofar as, doing so is in the best interests of the animal. Applying that concept, I (we) will argue that an animals' choices be respected when the relevant human decision maker's capacities to decide are potentially challenged or compromised. For example, it will be best to respect the animals' choice when the human decision maker: (1) lacks accurate knowledge of the animal's subjective experiences; (2) does not know what will lead to desirable experiences or allow for the avoidance of undesirable ones; (3) is biased; (4) is less aware of the animal's specific situation; (5) cannot appreciate all elements comprehensively, including considering any (content‐neutral) value to the animal being allowed to make and implement a choice, such as where a lack of control or liberty would be unpleasant or where an animal would usefully learn from the process of choice‐making; and (6) when the animal's choice is achievable. This additionally suggests that we may often beneficially choose to set up situations that empower animals to make better choices. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: Copyright of Journal of Applied Philosophy is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. item: Journal of Applied Philosophy holder: Wiley-Blackwell dt: @attributes: year: 2018 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|