ResearchWorks Archive

Beyond the Basic/Nonbasic Interests Distinction: A Feminist Approach to Inter-Species Moral Conflict and Moral Repair

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisor Goering, Sara L en_US Emmerman-Mazner, Karen S. en_US 2012-09-13T17:39:35Z 2012-09-13T17:39:35Z 2012-09-13 2012 en_US
dc.identifier.other EmmermanMazner_washington_0250E_10201.pdf en_US
dc.description Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Washington, 2012 en_US
dc.description.abstract There is no longer a dearth of well-reasoned argumentation for taking animals seriously and thus for questioning our exploitative relationships with them. It is over-determined that animals warrant moral attention. However, playing close attention to animals quickly reveals that taking their interests into account often generates conflicts with humans' interests. One common way to adjudicate competing claims is to point to a difference between basic interests (food, shelter, water, medical care, and avoiding unnecessary pain) and nonbasic interests (non-subsistence related interests) and claim that basic interests are always more important, morally speaking, than nonbasic ones. For example, a human's nonbasic interest in delicious chicken soup ought not to trump a chicken's basic interest in not suffering a horrific life under factory farming conditions and being killed for others' consumption. Careful attention to humans' interests reveals, however, that some of our seemingly less important interests are tied to highly valued ends. The chicken soup may play a significant role in my Jewish culture and in my relationship with my grandmother, for example. A tension can arise, therefore, between (1) the insight that animals' moral considerability warrants that we not harm them in service of nonbasic human interests and (2) the insight that some of our nonbasic interests are nonetheless morally significant. This tension is the focal point of my dissertation. I critically examine three methodologies for managing the tension between strong obligations to animals and the robustness of human interests (from philosophers Peter Singer, Paul Taylor, and Gary Varner). After arguing that all three are deficient in important ways, I recommend a feminist approach to inter-species conflicts of interest that I think best addresses the tension. The feminist approach is pluralist, non-hierarchical, and contextualized. It highlights how relationships of love and care complicate both humans' and animals' interests. It also underscores the importance of undertaking the work of moral repair in both the inter-human and inter-species realms when causing harm to some party is unavoidable. Thus, the feminist methodology is well positioned to take seriously our strong obligations to animals without ignoring or discounting the robustness of human interests. en_US
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf en_US
dc.language.iso en_US en_US
dc.rights Copyright is held by the individual authors. en_US
dc.subject Animal Rights; Animals; Animal Welfare; Ecofeminism; Feminist Ethics; inter-species conflicts en_US
dc.subject.other Philosophy en_US
dc.subject.other Environmental philosophy en_US
dc.subject.other Ethics en_US
dc.subject.other Philosophy en_US
dc.title Beyond the Basic/Nonbasic Interests Distinction: A Feminist Approach to Inter-Species Moral Conflict and Moral Repair en_US
dc.type Thesis en_US
dc.embargo.terms No embargo en_US

Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search ResearchWorks

Advanced Search


My Account