Download Morals

Fish welfare as a
discussion on moral status
and duties
Bernice Bovenkerk
Ethics Institute
Utrecht University
Leading questions:
• Why should one be concerned about the
welfare of fish?
• What are the presuppositions in terms of
the moral status of fish and our duties
towards fish?
Ethics and morality
Ethics: critical reflection on good and bad
Systematic reflection on morals
Morals: Existing system of norms and values
3 levels: meta-ethics, descriptive ethics,
normative ethics
Normative ethics: identifying acceptable
principles about 1) right and wrong action,
2) values
2 definitions of ethical theory
1) Formal: certain general characteristics
( p.e. universal validity/ overridingness)
 No claims regarding content
2) Substantive:definition of morality that does
have a specific content (p.e. morality is a
universal system aimed ad decreasing
suffering in the world)
Influence on moral status
Definition one uses influences look on moral
status.
No theory-independent view of moral status
Structure of presentation
1)
2)
3)
4)
My own research
Extension of moral concern to animals
Concept of moral status
Why is welfare of fish important for
discussion on their moral status?
Research project
Research questions
• What properties of fish could confer moral
status?
• What does it mean to speak about moral status?
• What do we mean by fish welfare? Welfare is a
term that combines biology and moral norms
• Beyond welfare: Is the killing of fish morally
justified?
Expansion of moral community
All life forms
Animals
Fish?
Women/
other classes
White men
Distinction between humans and
non-humans
• On the basis of specific characteristics:
Intelligence, creativity, sensitivity, moral
agency
• Two problems: 1) None of these
characteristiscs are exclusively human
2) Not all human beings possess these
characteristics
Personhood
• Kant
• Tied in with rationality and self-reflection
or self-awareness
• If we have self-reflection we have a
practical identity and we can perceive our
own life as worth living
• Problem of marginal cases
Pain
• Animal ethicists focus
on what humans and
other animals have in
common
• Animal in pain cries
• Makes a direct moral
claim on us
• Content of the moral
claim?
Moral status
Moral considerability vs moral significance
4 justifications for moral
considerability
1)
2)
3)
4)
Utilitarian
Deontologica/ rights-based
Relational/ care ethical
Virtue ethical
Utilitarian justification
• Peter Singer
• Ability to feel pain and
pleasure
• Preference utilitarian
• Basis moral status >
interests > sentience
Deontological line
•
•
•
•
Tom Regan
Subjects-of-a-life
Cognitive capacities
Experiential welfare, a
sense of the future,
desires and beliefs,
acting intentionally,
sense of future
Relational/ care-ethical line
• Does not focus on
intrinsic properties
• Obligations based on
relationship with animal
• Element of bias?
• Focus on responsibilities
• Asks a different question
Virtue ethics
• Rejects emphasis on rational argumentation
• Animals members of our community
• If we treat them badly we display wrong
character traits
• Gives us no method for arguing for moral
considerability or establishing moral
significance
Theoretical frameworks
No theory-independent view on moral status
• Regan: Kant > autonomy > cognitive abilities
• Singer: utilitarians promote non-moral values,
such as happiness > suffering
• No answer to moral significance question
• Why should moral status be central?
• Does it admit of gradation?
– Are we looking at the right level?
Fish are a borderline case
• Difficult to establish
whether fish have
awareness and can suffer
• Raises questions for moral
status of other animals as
well
• Where do we draw the line?
Conclusion
• Project will focus on 2 levels:
1) Specific moral theories > input from
empirical research
2) Meta-ethical questions: what does moral
status mean? On what normative
assumptions is it based?