Argument from marginal cases

Last updated

The argument from marginal cases (also known as the argument from species overlap) [1] is a philosophical argument within animal rights theory regarding the moral status of non-human animals. Its proponents hold that if human infants, senile people, the comatose, and cognitively disabled people have direct moral status, non-human animals must have a similar status, since there is no known morally relevant characteristic that those marginal-case humans have that animals lack. "Moral status" may refer to a right not to be killed or made to suffer, or to a general moral requirement to be treated in a certain way. [2]

Contents

Although various cases are made for it, Raymond Frey has described the argument from marginal cases collectively as 'one of the most common arguments in support of an equal value' of animals' lives. [3]

Overview

The argument from marginal cases takes the form of a proof by contradiction. It attempts to show that you cannot coherently believe both that all humans have moral status, and that all non-humans lack moral status.

Consider a cow. We ask why it is acceptable to kill this cow for food – we might claim, for example, that the cow has no concept of self and therefore it cannot be wrong to kill it. However, many young children may also lack this same concept of "self". [4] So if we accept the self-concept criterion, then we must also accept that killing children is acceptable in addition to killing cows, which is considered a reductio ad absurdum . So the concept of self cannot be our criterion.

The proponent will usually continue by saying that for any criterion or set of criteria (either capacities, e.g. language, consciousness, the ability to have moral responsibilities towards others; or relations, e.g. sympathy or power relations) [5] there exists some "marginal" human who is mentally handicapped in some way that would also meet the criteria for having no moral status. Peter Singer phrases it this way:

The catch is that any such characteristic that is possessed by all human beings will not be possessed only by human beings. For example, all human beings, but not only human beings, are capable of feeling pain; and while only human beings are capable of solving complex mathematical problems, not all humans can do this. [6]

Proponents

Daniel Dombrowski writes that the argument can be traced to Porphyry's third-century treatise On Abstinence from Eating Animals . [7] Danish philosopher Laurids Smith who was familiar with the arguments of Wilhelm Dietler argued against the idea that animals cannot possess rights because they cannot understand the ideas of right and duty. He reasoned that if this was correct then children and mentally ill people would not have rights either. [8] Other 18th-century philosophers who presented similar arguments include David Hume and Jeremy Bentham. [5]

In recent years, versions of the argument have been put forward by Peter Singer, [9] Tom Regan, [10] Evelyn Pluhar, [11] and Oscar Horta. [5]

James Rachels has argued that the theory of evolution implies that there is only a gradient between humans and other animals, and therefore marginal-case humans should be considered similar to non-human animals. [12]

Criticism

A counter-argument is the argument from species normality (a term coined by David Graham), proposed by Tibor Machan. In considering the rights of children or disabled people, Machan uses the analogy of a broken chair:

... classifications and ascriptions of capacities rely on the good sense of making certain generalizations. One way to show this is to recall that broken chairs, while they aren't any good to sit on, are still chairs, not monkeys or palm trees. Classifications are not something rigid but something reasonable. While there are some people who either for a little or longer while – say when they're asleep or in a coma – lack moral agency, in general people possess that capacity, whereas non-people don't. So it makes sense to understand them having rights so their capacity is respected and may be protected. This just doesn't work for other animals. [13]

David Graham interprets this to mean that if most of a species' members are moral agents then any member has the same rights and protections as the species. In brief, "The moral status of an individual depends on what is normal for that individual's species." [14]

James Rachels has responded to Machan that if one adopts the idea that individuals of a species must be treated according to what is normal for that species, then it would imply a chimp that somehow acquired the ability to read and write should not enter a university since it is not "normal" behavior for a chimpanzee. [15]

A related counterargument from Roderick Long is that a being can obtain moral agency by developing a rational capacity, and from there on has full moral agency even if this capacity is lost or diminished:

That is why a cow has no rights, though a human being reduced to the mental level of a cow does have them. There's something wrong with the human; there's nothing wrong with the cow. One might say that in the case of the cow-minded human, there's a blank spot where her moral agency is supposed to be, and someone else can step into that blank spot and act as an agent on her behalf. But in the cow there's no blank spot. [16]

Dr. Arthur L. Caplan, in an article on the ethics of organ donation by infants with anencephaly – born essentially without a brain – before physical death, raises some points about the Argument from Marginal Cases. He writes that some people cannot emotionally handle treating the anencephalic child as not worthy of moral status. Caplan also mentions concerns about possible misdiagnosis risk – the risk that an infant would be incorrectly diagnosed with anencephaly, and also the slippery-slope concern – the concern that other individuals are then at risk for organ donation, such as those in vegetative states or with severe disabilities. [17]

Some philosophers, such as Christopher Grau, argue that there is nothing wrong with granting rights to disabled humans while denying them to animals because it is perfectly valid to use humanity as a moral status. Grau argues that if moral status is to depend on a particular trait, then it must be shown why a particular trait is somehow worthy of basing moral status upon it. It cannot be because humans value it, since humans also value human beings, so it would need to be shown why a certain trait is somehow "better" than any other. In the absence of an impartial observer to tell us what those traits should be (Grau notes that there is also no guarantee that said impartial observer would say humans should not value other humans), there is no reason why it is unclear why simply being human should not be sufficient for moral status. Grau observes that alternative traits proposed for moral status, such as rationality or consciousness, are also often traits that most humans possess and that they are probably valued specifically because most humans possess them and value them, making them just as questionable a criterion for moral status as species membership, as they depend upon human attachment to them as a source of moral status. [18] [19]

See also

Related Research Articles

In ethical philosophy, ethical egoism is the normative position that moral agents ought to act in their own self-interest. It differs from psychological egoism, which claims that people can only act in their self-interest. Ethical egoism also differs from rational egoism, which holds that it is rational to act in one's self-interest. Ethical egoism holds, therefore, that actions whose consequences will benefit the doer are ethical.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Speciesism</span> Discrimination against non-human creatures solely on the basis of their species membership

Speciesism is a term used in philosophy regarding the treatment of individuals of different species. The term has several different definitions within the relevant literature. Some sources specifically define speciesism as discrimination or unjustified treatment based on an individual's species membership, while other sources define it as differential treatment without regard to whether the treatment is justified or not. Richard Ryder, who coined the term, defined it as "a prejudice or attitude of bias in favour of the interests of members of one's own species and against those of members of other species." Speciesism results in the belief that humans have the right to use non-human animals, which scholars say is pervasive in the modern society. Studies from 2015 and 2019 suggest that people who support animal exploitation also tend to endorse racist, sexist, and other prejudicial views, which furthers the beliefs in human supremacy and group dominance to justify systems of inequality and oppression.

Moral agency is an individual's ability to make moral choices based on some notion of right and wrong and to be held accountable for these actions. A moral agent is "a being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tom Regan</span> American philosopher and animal rights scholar (1938–2017)

Tom Regan was an American philosopher who specialized in animal rights theory. He was professor emeritus of philosophy at North Carolina State University, where he had taught from 1967 until his retirement in 2001.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tibor Machan</span> Hungarian-American philosopher (1939–2016)

Tibor Richard Machan was a Hungarian-American philosopher. A professor emeritus in the department of philosophy at Auburn University, Machan held the R. C. Hoiles Chair of Business Ethics and Free Enterprise at the Argyros School of Business & Economics at Chapman University in Orange, California until 31 December 2014.

Daniel A. Dombrowski is an American philosopher and professor emeritus of philosophy at Seattle University. Since 2009 he has served as Editor of the journal Process Studies, and is a past president of the Metaphysical Society of America (2018–19).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ethics of eating meat</span> Food ethics topic

Conversations regarding the ethics of eating meat are focused on whether or not it is moral to eat non-human animals. Ultimately, this is a debate that has been ongoing for millennia, and it remains one of the most prominent topics in food ethics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Animal rights</span> Belief that animals have interests that should be considered

Animal rights is the philosophy according to which many or all sentient animals have moral worth independent of their utility to humans, and that their most basic interests—such as avoiding suffering—should be afforded the same consideration as similar interests of human beings. Broadly speaking, and particularly in popular discourse, the term "animal rights" is often used synonymously with "animal protection" or "animal liberation". More narrowly, "animal rights" refers to the idea that many animals have fundamental rights to be treated with respect as individuals—rights to life, liberty, and freedom from torture that may not be overridden by considerations of aggregate welfare.

The philosophical aspects of the abortion debate are logical arguments that can be made either in support of or in opposition to abortion.

<i>The Case for Animal Rights</i> 1983 book by Tom Regan

The Case for Animal Rights is a 1983 book by the American philosopher Tom Regan, in which the author argues that at least some kinds of non-human animals have moral rights because they are the "subjects-of-a-life," and that these rights adhere to them whether or not they are recognized. The work is considered an important text within animal rights theory.

Biocentrism, in a political and ecological sense, as well as literally, is an ethical point of view that extends inherent value to all living things. It is an understanding of how the earth works, particularly as it relates to its biosphere or biodiversity. It stands in contrast to anthropocentrism, which centers on the value of humans. The related ecocentrism extends inherent value to the whole of nature.

Raymond G. Frey was a professor of philosophy at Bowling Green State University, specializing in moral, political and legal philosophy, and author or editor of a number of books. He was a noted critic of animal rights.

<i>Animal Rights Without Liberation</i> 2012 book by British political theorist Alasdair Cochrane

Animal Rights Without Liberation: Applied Ethics and Human Obligations is a 2012 book by the British political theorist Alasdair Cochrane, in which it is argued that animal rights philosophy can be decoupled from animal liberation philosophy by the adoption of the interest-based rights approach. Cochrane, arguing that there is no reason that (nonhuman) animals should be excluded from justice, adopts Joseph Raz's account of interest rights and extends it to include animals. He argues that sentient animals possess a right not to be made to suffer and a right not to be killed, but not a right to freedom. The book's chapters apply Cochrane's account to a number of interactions between humans and animals; first animal experimentation, then animal agriculture, the genetic engineering of animals, the use of animals in entertainment and sport, the relationship of animals to environmental practices and the use of animals in cultural practices.

John Hadley is an Australian philosopher whose research concerns moral and political philosophy, including animal ethics, environmental ethics, and metaethics. He is currently a senior lecturer in philosophy in the School of Humanities and Communication Arts at Western Sydney University. He has previously taught at Charles Sturt University and the University of Sydney, where he studied as an undergraduate and doctoral candidate. In addition to a variety of articles in peer-reviewed journals and edited collections, he is the author of the 2015 monograph Animal Property Rights and the 2019 monograph Animal Neopragmatism. He is also the co-editor, with Elisa Aaltola, of the 2015 collection Animal Ethics and Philosophy.

Evelyn B. Pluhar-Adams is an American philosopher specialising in moral philosophy and the philosophy of mind, especially concerning the moral status of animals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Oscar Horta</span> Spanish animal activist and moral philosopher

Óscar Horta Álvarez is a Spanish animal activist and moral philosopher who is currently a professor in the Department of Philosophy and Anthropology at the University of Santiago de Compostela (USC) and one of the co-founders of the organization Animal Ethics. He is known for his work in animal ethics, especially around the problem of wild animal suffering. He has also worked on the concept of speciesism and on the clarification of the arguments for the moral consideration of nonhuman animals. In 2022, Horta published his first book in English, Making a Stand for Animals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Predation problem</span> Consideration of the harms experienced by animals due to predation as a moral problem

The predation problem or predation argument refers to the consideration of the harms experienced by animals due to predation as a moral problem, that humans may or may not have an obligation to work towards preventing. Discourse on this topic has, by and large, been held within the disciplines of animal and environmental ethics. The issue has particularly been discussed in relation to animal rights and wild animal suffering. Some critics have considered an obligation to prevent predation as untenable or absurd and have used the position as a reductio ad absurdum to reject the concept of animal rights altogether. Others have criticized any obligation implied by the animal rights position as environmentally harmful.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Relationship between animal ethics and environmental ethics</span>

The relationship between animal ethics and environmental ethics concerns the differing ethical consideration of individual nonhuman animals—particularly those living in spaces outside of direct human control—and conceptual entities such as species, populations and ecosystems. The intersection of these two fields is a prominent component of vegan discourse.

"The Meat Eaters" is a 2010 essay by the American philosopher Jeff McMahan, published as an op-ed in The New York Times. In the essay, McMahan asserts that humans have a moral obligation to stop eating meat and, in a conclusion considered to be controversial, that humans also have a duty to prevent predation by individuals who belong to carnivorous species, if we can do so without inflicting greater harm overall.

<i>On Abstinence from Eating Animals</i> 3rd-century treatise on vegetarianism by Porphyry

On Abstinence from Eating Animals is a 3rd-century treatise by Porphyry on the ethics of vegetarianism. The four-book treatise was composed by the philosopher as an open letter to Castricius Firmus, a fellow pupil of Plotinus who had renounced a vegetarian diet.

References

  1. ↑ "The argument from species overlap". Animal Ethics. Retrieved 2015-02-05.
  2. ↑ Dombrowski, Daniel (1997). Babies and Beasts: The Argument from Marginal Cases. University of Illinois Press.
  3. ↑ Frey, Raymond G. (2014) Moral Standing, the Value of Lives and Speciesism. In: LaFollette, Hugh. Ethics in Practice: An Anthology. 4th Edition. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, p. 186.
  4. ↑ Harter, S. (1983). Developmental perspectives on the self-system. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology, (4th ed., Vol. 4, (pp. 275–385). New York: Wiley.
  5. 1 2 3 Horta, Oscar. "The Scope of the Argument from Species Overlap", Journal of Applied Philosophy, 31, 2014, 142-154.
  6. ↑ Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation. New York: HarperCollins, 2002. Print.
  7. ↑ Dombrowski, Daniel A. (January 1984). "Vegetarianism and the Argument from Marginal Cases in Porphyry". Journal of the History of Ideas. 45 (1): 141–143. doi:10.2307/2709335. JSTOR   2709335. Archived from the original on 17 January 2023. Retrieved 21 January 2024.
  8. ↑ Maehle, Andreas-Holger (1993). "The ethical discourse on animal experimentation, 1650–1900". Clio Medica. 24: 203–251. PMID   7516841.
  9. ↑ Animals and Ethics – Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
  10. ↑ Regan, Tom "An examination and defense of one argument concerning animal rights", Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 22, 1979, 189–219
  11. ↑ Pluhar, E. Beyond Prejudice: The Moral Significance of Human and Nonhuman Animals, Durham: Duke University Press, 1995
  12. ↑ Rachels, James. Created from Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism. Oxford University Press, 1991.
  13. ↑ Machan, Tibor R. (2004-03-13). "Why Animal Rights Don't Exist". Strike The Root. Retrieved 2023-02-21.
  14. ↑ Graham, David (2004-03-28). "A Libertarian Replies to Tibor Machan's 'Why Animal Rights Don't Exist'". Strike The Root. Retrieved 2023-02-21.
  15. ↑ Animal Rights and Human Obligations, p. 100.
  16. ↑ Why Fur Is Not Murder
  17. ↑ "Is It Ethical to Use Anencephalic Newborns for Organ Donation?". Medscape. Retrieved 2019-11-18.
  18. ↑ Grau, Christopher "A Sensible Speciesism?", (2016)
  19. ↑ "Cognitive Ability and Moral Status". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 25 February 2019.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.