Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
T. Blackwell (1996)
The Frankenstein Syndrome: Ethical and Social Issues in the Genetic Engineering of Animals.Canadian Veterinary Journal-revue Veterinaire Canadienne, 37
B. Rollin (1995)
The Frankenstein Syndrome: Ethical and Social Issues in the Genetic Engineering of Animals
R. Stoller (1991)
An Island for Dr. Moreau
Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage – 1994, Cooperative Extension Division
(2004)
No Foolproof Way Is Seen To Contain Altered Genes,'' The New York Times
B. Norton (1991)
Toward Unity among Environmentalists
William Cronon (1996)
Uncommon ground : rethinking the human place in nature
R. Goldstein, Micha Drukker, B. Reubinoff, N. Benvenisty (2002)
Integration and differentiation of human embryonic stem cells transplanted to the chick embryoDevelopmental Dynamics, 225
(1995)
Can Animal Rights Activists Be Environmentalists?
J. Launer (2002)
Darwin's dangerous idea.QJM : monthly journal of the Association of Physicians, 95 3
J. B. Callicott (1988)
Companion to the Sand County Almanac
(2003)
How I Chopped the Fat from Bacon... Wilbur the 300 kg Boar Will Help Farmers to Breed Leaner, Tastier, More Profitable Animals
T. Scheid-Cook, A. Leopold (1949)
A Sand County Almanac
Don Marietta, Lester Embree, L. Irland, Peter List (1996)
Environmental Philosophy and Environmental Activism
V. Ourednik, J. Ourednik, J. Flax, W. Zawada, Cynthia Hutt, Chunhua Yang, K. Park, Seung Kim, R. Sidman, C. Freed, E. Snyder (2001)
Segregation of Human Neural Stem Cells in the Developing Primate ForebrainScience, 293
M. Warren (1998)
Moral Status: Obligations to Persons and Other Living Things
J. Callicott, M. Nelson (1998)
The Great New Wilderness Debate
C. Dennis (2002)
China: Stem cells rise in the EastNature, 419
Jill Didur (2003)
Re-embodying Technoscientific Fantasies: Posthumanism, Genetically Modified Foods, and the Colonization of LifeCultural Critique, 53
R. Carruthers (2004)
Biological Control of Invasive Species, a Personal PerspectiveConservation Biology, 18
M. Midgley (2000)
Biotechnology and monstrosity. Why we should pay attention to the "yuk factor".The Hastings Center report, 30 5
CO, 80309-0232 USA E-mail: bhale@colorado
J. Rice, S. Venitt, D. Mcgregor (1999)
The use of short-and medium-term tests for carcinogens and data on genetic effects in carcinogenic hazard evaluation. Consensus report.IARC scientific publications, 146
J. Savulescu (2003)
Human-Animal Transgenesis and Chimeras Might Be an Expression of Our HumanityThe American Journal of Bioethics, 3
D. Richardson, P. Pyšek, M. Rejmánek, M. Barbour, F. Panetta, C. West (2000)
Naturalization and invasion of alien plants: concepts and definitionsDiversity and Distributions, 6
D. Lodge, K. Shrader-Frechette (2003)
Nonindigenous Species: Ecological Explanation, Environmental Ethics, and Public PolicyConservation Biology, 17
(2004)
So the Fish Glow, but Will They Sell?
H. Bok (2003)
What's Wrong with Confusion?The American Journal of Bioethics, 3
A. Siegel (2003)
The Moral Insignificance of Crossing Species BoundariesThe American Journal of Bioethics, 3
Jon Jensen (1998)
In Nature's Interests? Interests, Animal Rights, and Environmental Ethics (review)Ethics & the Environment, 4
H. G. Wells (1996)
The Island of Dr Moreau
J. Callicott (1980)
Animal Liberation: A Triangular AffairEnvironmental Ethics, 2
(2004)
Scientists Could Make GM Beef with Healthy Fish Oils,'' The Independent
(2002)
Scientists Put a Bit of Man into a Mouse Available from
M. Sagoff (1984)
Animal Liberation and Environmental Ethics: Bad Marriage, Quick DivorceOsgoode Hall Law Journal
J. Robert, F. Baylis (2003)
Crossing Species BoundariesThe American Journal of Bioethics, 3
(2004)
The Roots of Moral Considerability
Eric Katz (1983)
Is There a Place for Animals in the Moral Consideration of Nature, 4
H. Birx, R. Leakey, E. Dutton, S. Gould, W. Norton (1981)
The Mismeasure of ManBioScience
A. Stowers, Lihow Chen, Yanling Zhang, Michael Kennedy, Lanling Zou, L. Lambert, Timothy Rice, D. Kaslow, A. Saul, C. Long, H. Meade, L. Miller (2001)
A recombinant vaccine expressed in the milk of transgenic mice protects Aotus monkeys from a lethal challenge with Plasmodium falciparumProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 99
(2004)
Talking Apes, Flying Pigs, Superhumans with Armadillo Attributes, and Other Strange Considerations of Dr. Stuart Newman's Fight to Patent a Human/Animal Chimera
The term moral considerability refers to the question of whether a being or set of beings is worthy of moral consideration. Moral considerability is most readily afforded to those beings that demonstrate the clearest relationship to rational humans, though many have also argued for and against the moral considerability of species, ecosystems, and “lesser” animals. Among these arguments there are at least two positions: “environmentalist” positions that tend to emphasize the systemic relations between species, and “liberationist” positions that tend to emphasize the attributes or welfare of a particular individual organism. Already, this classic conflict provides for some challenging theoretical clashes between environmentalists and animal liberationists. The question of moral considerability is complicated, however, by recent developments in genetic engineering. Some animals, like pigs and fish, have been genetically modified by humans to grow organs that can then be transplanted into humans. If environmental arguments for the moral consideration of species are correct, then we are released from our obligations to morally consider those animals that we have genetically modified, since they are by their nature always an “invader species.” If, instead, the welfare of the animal is of penultimate importance, then there is a case for strengthening the moral considerability of GM animals over “naturally-occurring” animals, since they bear a closer relationship to humans. This would appear to be an intractable problem, a “bad marriage,” as Mark Sagoff once proposed. This paper argues that the case of invasive transgenic animals exposes weaknesses in this classic conflict, and particularly, in the framing of this conflict. To remedy this framing problem, this paper argues for a reconceptualization of the term “moral considerability,” instead urging a strong distinction between moral considerability, moral relevance, and moral significance.
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics – Springer Journals
Published: Jun 3, 2006
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.