Author | Edward Payson Evans |
---|---|
Language | English |
Subjects | Animal rights, animal psychology, evolutionary ethics, human-animal relationships, moral philosophy, history of ethics |
Genre | Philosophy, ethics, animal studies, psychology |
Published | 1897 |
Publisher | D. Appleton & Company |
Publication place | United States |
Pages | 386 |
OCLC | 4854608 |
Evolutional Ethics and Animal Psychology is an 1897 book by the American scholar and early animal rights advocate Edward Payson Evans. It is an in-depth exploration of the intersection between ethical theory and animal psychology, with a particular focus on the rights of animals and the moral obligations humans have toward them.
The book argues that a thorough understanding of animal psychology is essential for establishing a sound ethical foundation regarding the treatment of animals. Evans begins by tracing the historical development of ethical concepts from the early stages of human civilization. In primitive tribal societies, moral rights and obligations were typically confined to blood relations within the same tribe, while outsiders, including both humans and animals, were often treated as enemies or as beings without rights.
As human societies evolved, so too did their ethical frameworks, gradually expanding to include not only all humans but also animals. Evans critiques the traditional anthropocentric worldview that places humans inherently above all other forms of life, arguing that this perspective is both scientifically outdated and morally inadequate. He emphasizes the importance of recognizing animals' mental capacities—such as their ability to experience pain, form social bonds, and exhibit behaviors that suggest a degree of consciousness—and contends that these capacities should inform how animals are treated ethically.
The book also delves into the influence of various cultural, religious, and philosophical traditions on the treatment of animals. Evans examines how beliefs about animals in different societies—from ancient to modern times—have shaped laws and customs, often leading to contradictory approaches to animal welfare. For example, while some religious traditions promote compassion toward animals, others justify their exploitation based on the belief that animals lack souls or higher intelligence.
Evans argues that these historical attitudes towards animals have often been more reflective of human ignorance and self-interest than of any true ethical consideration. He advocates for an ethical approach that is informed by the latest scientific research on animal behavior and psychology, urging a move away from seeing animals as mere resources or tools for human use. Instead, Evans proposes that animals should be considered as beings with their own intrinsic value, deserving of rights that protect their well-being and dignity.
The book culminates in a call for a revision of existing legal and moral frameworks to better reflect the ethical responsibilities humans have towards animals, grounded in an understanding of their psychological complexity and the evolutionary connections between all forms of life.
David Irons, writing for ThePhilosophical Review, described the book as "an interesting, if rather popular and discursive, treatment of one of the applications of the theory of evolution." [1] A review in the Journal of Education described the book as "an interesting and important contribution to the fascinating discussion of the relation of animal species and human races to each other." [2]
Carl Evans Boyd's review in The American Journal of Theology was critical of the book's use of stories about animal intelligence which lacked "insufficient as a basis for generalization." [3] Boyd also criticized Evans for a "failure to recognize that if expatriation be a natural right, it is a right only as against the state of origin, and can have no reference to any other state." [3] Edmond Kelly criticized Evans' use of disputed Lamarckian theory in the book. [4]
In a revised edition of Animals' Rights: Considered in Relation to Social Progress , published in 1922, Henry Stephens Salt cited Evans' book as an example of how the long-held distinction between human and non-human animal intelligence has been challenged by recent writers. Salt also drew attention to Evans' claim that humans need to move past anthropocentric conceptions that treat humans as fundamentally different and separate to all other sentient beings and that, as a result, no moral obligations are required towards them. [5]
Writing in 1989, R. J. Hoage described the book as, in the 90 years since its publication, remaining unequaled in its scholarship and insight on the topics of evolutionary ethics and the ethical treatment of animals. [6]
Speciesism is a term used in philosophy regarding the treatment of individuals of different species. The term has several different definitions. Some specifically define speciesism as discrimination or unjustified treatment based on an individual's species membership, while others define it as differential treatment without regard to whether the treatment is justified or not. Richard D. 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 in exploitative ways which is pervasive in the modern society. Studies from 2015 and 2019 suggest that people who support animal exploitation also tend to have intersectional bias that encapsulates and endorses racist, sexist, and other prejudicial views, which furthers the beliefs in human supremacy and group dominance to justify systems of inequality and oppression.
Anthropocentrism is the belief that human beings are the central or most important entity on the planet. The term can be used interchangeably with humanocentrism, and some refer to the concept as human supremacy or human exceptionalism. From an anthropocentric perspective, humankind is seen as separate from nature and superior to it, and other entities are viewed as resources for humans to use.
In moral philosophy, deontological ethics or deontology is the normative ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules and principles, rather than based on the consequences of the action. It is sometimes described as duty-, obligation-, or rule-based ethics. Deontological ethics is commonly contrasted to consequentialism, utilitarianism, virtue ethics, and pragmatic ethics. In this terminology, action is more important than the consequences.
Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals is a 1975 book by the Australian philosopher Peter Singer. It is widely considered within the animal liberation movement to be the founding philosophical statement of its ideas. Singer himself rejected the use of the theoretical framework of rights when it comes to human and nonhuman animals. Following Jeremy Bentham, Singer argued that the interests of animals should be considered because of their ability to experience suffering and that the idea of rights was not necessary in order to consider them. He popularized the term "speciesism" in the book, which had been coined by Richard D. Ryder to describe the exploitative treatment of animals.
Mary Beatrice Midgley was a British philosopher. A senior lecturer in philosophy at Newcastle University, she was known for her work on science, ethics and animal rights. She wrote her first book, Beast and Man (1978), when she was in her late fifties, and went on to write over 15 more, including Animals and Why They Matter (1983), Wickedness (1984), The Ethical Primate (1994), Evolution as a Religion (1985), and Science as Salvation (1992). She was awarded honorary doctorates by Durham and Newcastle universities. Her autobiography, The Owl of Minerva, was published in 2005.
Evolutionary ethics is a field of inquiry that explores how evolutionary theory might bear on our understanding of ethics or morality. The range of issues investigated by evolutionary ethics is quite broad. Supporters of evolutionary ethics have argued that it has important implications in the fields of descriptive ethics, normative ethics, and metaethics.
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 argument from marginal cases 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.
Animal ethics is a branch of ethics which examines human-animal relationships, the moral consideration of animals and how nonhuman animals ought to be treated. The subject matter includes animal rights, animal welfare, animal law, speciesism, animal cognition, wildlife conservation, wild animal suffering, the moral status of nonhuman animals, the concept of nonhuman personhood, human exceptionalism, the history of animal use, and theories of justice. Several different theoretical approaches have been proposed to examine this field, in accordance with the different theories currently defended in moral and political philosophy. There is no theory which is completely accepted due to the differing understandings of what is meant by the term ethics; however, there are theories that are more widely accepted by society such as animal rights and utilitarianism.
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 equal 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.
Animals' Rights: Considered in Relation to Social Progress is an 1892 book by the English social reformer Henry Stephens Salt. It is widely considered to be the first explicit treatment of the concept of animal rights.
The Machine Question: Critical Perspectives on AI, Robots, and Ethics is a 2012 nonfiction book by David J. Gunkel that discusses the evolution of the theory of human ethical responsibilities toward non-human things and to what extent intelligent, autonomous machines can be considered to have legitimate moral responsibilities and what legitimate claims to moral consideration they can hold. The book was awarded as the 2012 Best Single Authored Book by the Communication Ethics Division of the National Communication Association.
John Howard Moore was an American zoologist, philosopher, educator, and social reformer. He was best known for his advocacy of ethical vegetarianism and his pioneering role in the animal rights movement, both deeply influenced by his ethical interpretation of Darwin's theory of evolution. Moore's most influential work, The Universal Kinship (1906), introduced a sentiocentric philosophy he called the doctrine of Universal Kinship, arguing that the ethical treatment of animals, rooted in the Golden Rule, is essential for human ethical evolution, urging humans to extend their moral considerations to all sentient beings, based on their shared physical and mental evolutionary kinship.
The Universal Kinship is a 1906 book by American zoologist and philosopher J. Howard Moore. In the book, Moore advocates for the doctrine of Universal Kinship, a secular sentiocentric philosophy, which mandates the ethical consideration and treatment of all sentient beings based on Darwinian principles of shared evolutionary kinship, and a universal application of the Golden Rule, a challenge to existing anthropocentric hierarchies and ethics. The book built on arguments Moore first made in Better-World Philosophy, published in 1899, and was followed by The New Ethics in 1907. The Universal Kinship was endorsed by a number of contemporary figures including Henry S. Salt, Mark Twain and Jack London, Eugene V. Debs and Mona Caird.
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.
The ethics of uncertain sentience refers to questions surrounding the treatment of and moral obligations towards individuals whose sentience—the capacity to subjectively sense and feel—and resulting ability to experience pain is uncertain; the topic has been particularly discussed within the field of animal ethics, with the precautionary principle frequently invoked in response.
Moral Inquiries on the Situation of Man and of Brutes is an 1824 book by Lewis Gompertz, an early animal rights advocate and vegan. The book argues that animals, like humans, are sentient beings capable of experiencing pain and pleasure, and thus deserve moral consideration. He critiques the exploitation of animals for labour, food, and clothing, condemning practices such as slaughter, hunting, and scientific experimentation. He also addresses the suffering of wild animals, suggesting that even in nature, animals face hardships such as hunger and predation.
The New Ethics is a 1907 book by the American zoologist and philosopher J. Howard Moore, in which he advocates for a form of ethics, that he calls the New Ethics, which applies the principle of the Golden Rule—treat others as you would want to be treated yourself—to all sentient beings. It builds upon the arguments made in his 1899 book, Better-World Philosophy, and 1906 book, The Universal Kinship.
Moral circle expansion is an increase over time in the number and type of entities given moral consideration. The general idea of moral inclusion was discussed by ancient philosophers and since the 19th century has inspired social movements related to human rights and animal rights. Especially in relation to animal rights, the philosopher Peter Singer has written about the subject since the 1970s, and since 2017 so has the think tank Sentience Institute, part of the 21st-century effective altruism movement. There is significant debate on whether humanity actually has an expanding moral circle, considering topics such as the lack of a uniform border of growing moral consideration and the disconnect between people's moral attitudes and their behavior. Research into the phenomenon is ongoing.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (link)