{"title":"从这里到乌托邦:非理想动物伦理的变化理论。","authors":"Nico Dario Müller","doi":"10.1007/s10806-022-09894-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Animal ethics has often been criticized for an overreliance on \"ideal\" or even \"utopian\" theorizing. In this article, I recognize this problem, but argue that the \"nonideal theory\" which critics have offered in response is still insufficient to make animal ethics action-guiding. I argue that in order for animal ethics to be action-guiding, it must consider <i>agent-centered theories of change</i> detailing how an ideally just human-animal coexistence can and should be brought about. I lay out desiderata that such a theory of change should suffice so as to be helpful in guiding action. Specifically, a theory of change should determine (1) who needs to do what in order for ideal justice to be achieved in the long run, (2) who should be expected to refuse compliance and how they should be moved to comply, and (3) why specific intermediate steps are necessary. I show how previous \"nonideal\" contributions, though helpful in other ways, are insufficiently determinate on these points and I sketch a (still somewhat utopian) theory of change for one specific context. This brings animal ethics a crucial step closer to being action-guiding in the real world.</p>","PeriodicalId":50258,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9633533/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"From here to Utopia: Theories of Change in Nonideal Animal Ethics.\",\"authors\":\"Nico Dario Müller\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10806-022-09894-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Animal ethics has often been criticized for an overreliance on \\\"ideal\\\" or even \\\"utopian\\\" theorizing. In this article, I recognize this problem, but argue that the \\\"nonideal theory\\\" which critics have offered in response is still insufficient to make animal ethics action-guiding. I argue that in order for animal ethics to be action-guiding, it must consider <i>agent-centered theories of change</i> detailing how an ideally just human-animal coexistence can and should be brought about. I lay out desiderata that such a theory of change should suffice so as to be helpful in guiding action. Specifically, a theory of change should determine (1) who needs to do what in order for ideal justice to be achieved in the long run, (2) who should be expected to refuse compliance and how they should be moved to comply, and (3) why specific intermediate steps are necessary. I show how previous \\\"nonideal\\\" contributions, though helpful in other ways, are insufficiently determinate on these points and I sketch a (still somewhat utopian) theory of change for one specific context. This brings animal ethics a crucial step closer to being action-guiding in the real world.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50258,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9633533/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-022-09894-3\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/11/3 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-022-09894-3","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/11/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
From here to Utopia: Theories of Change in Nonideal Animal Ethics.
Animal ethics has often been criticized for an overreliance on "ideal" or even "utopian" theorizing. In this article, I recognize this problem, but argue that the "nonideal theory" which critics have offered in response is still insufficient to make animal ethics action-guiding. I argue that in order for animal ethics to be action-guiding, it must consider agent-centered theories of change detailing how an ideally just human-animal coexistence can and should be brought about. I lay out desiderata that such a theory of change should suffice so as to be helpful in guiding action. Specifically, a theory of change should determine (1) who needs to do what in order for ideal justice to be achieved in the long run, (2) who should be expected to refuse compliance and how they should be moved to comply, and (3) why specific intermediate steps are necessary. I show how previous "nonideal" contributions, though helpful in other ways, are insufficiently determinate on these points and I sketch a (still somewhat utopian) theory of change for one specific context. This brings animal ethics a crucial step closer to being action-guiding in the real world.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics welcomes articles on ethical issues confronting agriculture, food production and environmental concerns. The goal of this journal is to create a forum for discussion of moral issues arising from actual or projected social policies in regard to a wide range of questions. Among these are ethical questions concerning the responsibilities of agricultural producers, the assessment of technological changes affecting farm populations, the utilization of farmland and other resources, the deployment of intensive agriculture, the modification of ecosystems, animal welfare, the professional responsibilities of agrologists, veterinarians, or food scientists, the use of biotechnology, the safety, availability, and affordability of food.