More Than Zombies: Considering the Animal Subject in De-Extinction

IF 1.5 Q4 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Heather Browning, W. Veit
{"title":"More Than Zombies: Considering the Animal Subject in De-Extinction","authors":"Heather Browning, W. Veit","doi":"10.1080/21550085.2022.2071552","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Katz (2022) provides a range of arguments drawn from the environmental philosophy literature to criticize the conceptualisation and practice of de-extinction. The discussion is almost completely devoted to the ontological and epistemological issues, with the intention of avoiding the usual ethical questions that arise in the conversation surrounding de-extinction, including the welfare of de-extinct animals. However, while this may be well-motivated, the points raised are often inextricably entwined with matters of value, used to draw conclusions regarding the ethical permissibility of the practice, and hence make such a separation difficult if not impossible. In particular, Katz emphasizes the relationship between humans and nature, distinguishing between collective citizenship with other animals in nature vs. the domination and control of nature, meaning his arguments all return to ethics. Here we will argue that Katz is in error to exclude the interests of the animals themselves.","PeriodicalId":45955,"journal":{"name":"Ethics Policy & Environment","volume":"40 1","pages":"121 - 124"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics Policy & Environment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2022.2071552","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Katz (2022) provides a range of arguments drawn from the environmental philosophy literature to criticize the conceptualisation and practice of de-extinction. The discussion is almost completely devoted to the ontological and epistemological issues, with the intention of avoiding the usual ethical questions that arise in the conversation surrounding de-extinction, including the welfare of de-extinct animals. However, while this may be well-motivated, the points raised are often inextricably entwined with matters of value, used to draw conclusions regarding the ethical permissibility of the practice, and hence make such a separation difficult if not impossible. In particular, Katz emphasizes the relationship between humans and nature, distinguishing between collective citizenship with other animals in nature vs. the domination and control of nature, meaning his arguments all return to ethics. Here we will argue that Katz is in error to exclude the interests of the animals themselves.
不仅仅是僵尸:考虑动物的灭绝
卡茨(2022)从环境哲学文献中提出了一系列论点,批评了灭绝的概念化和实践。讨论几乎完全致力于本体论和认识论问题,目的是避免在围绕灭绝的对话中出现的常见伦理问题,包括灭绝动物的福利。然而,虽然这可能是出于良好的动机,但提出的观点往往与价值问题密不可分,用于得出关于实践的道德允许性的结论,因此使这种分离变得困难,如果不是不可能的话。卡茨特别强调人与自然的关系,区分了与自然中其他动物的集体公民权与对自然的支配和控制,这意味着他的论点都回到了伦理学。在这里,我们将论证卡茨排除动物自身利益的做法是错误的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Ethics Policy & Environment
Ethics Policy & Environment ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
10.00%
发文量
32
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信