Oscar Horta

Conforme al antropocentrismo moral, está justificado tratar de forma desfavorable a los animales no humanos frente a los seres humanos. Esta idea se mantiene a menudo indicando que hay ciertas capacidades o relaciones, defendidas como moralmente relevantes, que solo tendrían estos últimos. El argumento de la superposición de especies apunta, sin embargo, que esta asunción se encuentra equivocada. Toda una serie de seres humanos incumplen también tal criterio. De este modo, si continuamos defendiendo su relevancia, estaremos aceptando que se dé a estos seres humanos un trato coincidente con el que se proporciona hoy en día a los animales no humanos. Si, en cambio, se quiere dar una plena consideración y un consiguiente trato ecuánime a todos los seres humanos, ello implicará el rechazo de tal criterio, y la extensión de tal consideración y trato a los demás animales sintientes. Se ha intentado responder a este argumento asumiendo que sus premisas son equivocadas, o sosteniendo que hay otras razones por las cuales todos los seres humanos deben ser moralmente considerables. En este artículo se examinan estas respuestas y se concluye que ninguna de ellas tiene éxito

La relación entre el problema de la temporalidad del valor y el de nuestra persistencia diacrónica prácticamente no ha sido explorada hasta ahora. Sin embargo, el análisis de cada una de estas cuestiones puede arrojar luz sobre la otra de manera interesante. Este artículo argumentará que las conexiones entre la asimetría de nuestras actitudes hacia el futuro y el pasado, y la cuestión de nuestra persistencia diacrónica pueden defenderse sin incurrir en modo alguno a una petición de principio. The relation between the problem of the temporality of value and the problem of our diachronic persistence has virtually not been explored so far. However, the analysis of these questions can shed light on each other in an interesting way. This paper argues that an explanation of the connections between the asymmetry of our attitudes towards the future and the past and the question of our diachronic persistence is possible without begging the question in any way

RESUMENEl particularismo moral rechaza la pertinencia del recurso a los principios en ética. Una serie de autores de filiación postanalítica neowittgensteiniana han asumido esta posición conducidos por planteamientos antiteóricos, que rechazan el rol evaluativo de la filosofía moral. En este artículo se presenta y examina críticamente esta posición. No se afirma aquí que los antiteóricos incurran necesariamente en posiciones inconsistentes, pero se apunta que su crítica a la teoría moral puede estar descaminada, al descansar en una comprensión incorrecta del carácter de la justificación en ética.PALABRAS CLAVEPARTICULARISMO, GENERALISMO, ANTITEORÍA, JUSTIFICACIÓN MORALABSTRACTMoral particularism claims that principles have no use in ethics. A number of authors working in the postanalitic neowittgensteinian tradition have held this position, driven by an antitheoretical viewpoint which rejects the evaluative role of moral philosophy. This paper presents and examines this position from a critical perspective. It does not claim that antitheorists necessarily hold inconsistent positions, but it points out that their critique of moral theory may be misinformed, since it rests on a wrong conception of what justification in ethics is about.KEYWORDSPARTICULARISM, GENERALISM, ANTITHEORY, MORAL JUSTIFICATION

Este artículo examina los presupuestos metodológicos, axiológicos y normativos en los que descansa la que posiblemente sea la obra más conocida de Peter Singer, Liberación animal. Se exploran las tensiones entre la posición normativa, de compromisos mínimos, que se intenta adoptar en esa obra, y las posiciones de Singer acerca del utilitarismo de las preferencias y el argumento de la reemplazabilidad. Se buscará elucidar en particular el modo en el que surgen tales tensiones al abordarse la consideración del agregacionismo y el interés en vivir en relación con el uso de animales no humanos. This paper examines the methodological, axiological and normative assumptions on which Animal Liberation -arguably the most poular work by Peter Singer- rests. It explores the tensions between the normative position this book intends to adopt, which tries to compromise as little as possible with any specific normative theory, and Singer's views on preference utilitarianism and the replaceability argument. In particular, the paper tries to assess the way in which such tensions arise when aggregationism and the question of the interest in living are considered in relation to the use of nonhuman animals

This article tries to define what discrimination is and to understand in particular detail its most important instances: those in which the satisfaction of interests is at stake. These cases of discrimination will be characterized in terms of deprivations of benefits. In order to describe and classify them we need to consider three different factors: the benefits of which discriminatees are deprived, the criteria according to which such benefits are denied or granted, and the justification that such deprivation of benefits may have (or lack). This definition intends to present discrimination as a concept that may be useful not only to examine certain social phenomena, but also, more widely, to ethical theory in general

Larry Temkin and Stuart Rachels have argued that the “_ is better than _” relation need not be transitive. In support of this claim, they have presented several spectrum cases towards which our actual preferences appear not to be transitive. In this paper I examine one of them, and explain that there are several solutions we may give to the problem of what is the best global option within the spectrum. I point out that these solutions do not depend on whether we reject or accept the transitivity of the “_ is better than _” relation. This reduces the strength of the challenge that spectrum cases pose to transitivity in axiology.

The argument from species overlap has been widely used in the literature on animal ethics and speciesism. However, there has been much confusion regarding what the argument proves and what it does not prove, and regarding the views it challenges. This article intends to clarify these confusions, and to show that the name most often used for this argument (‘the argument from marginal cases’) reflects and reinforces these misunderstandings. The article claims that the argument questions not only those defences of anthropocentrism that appeal to capacities believed to be typically human, but also those that appeal to special relations between humans. This means the scope of the argument is far wider than has been thought thus far. Finally, the article claims that, even if the argument cannot prove by itself that we should not disregard the interests of nonhuman animals, it provides us with strong reasons to do so, since the argument does prove that no defence of anthropocentrism appealing to non-definitional and testable criteria succeeds

According to the Internal Aspects View, the value of different outcomesdepends solely on the internal features possessed by each outcome and theinternal relations between them. This paper defends the Internal AspectsView against Larry Temkin’s defence of the Essentially Comparative View,according to which the value of different outcomes depends on what isthe alternative outcome they are compared with. The paper discusses bothperson-affecting arguments and Spectrum Arguments. The paper doesnot defend a person-affecting view over an impersonal one, but it arguesthat although there are intuitive person-affecting principles that entail anEssentially Comparative View, the intuitions that support these principlescan also be acommodated by other principles that are compatible with theInternal Aspects View. The paper also argues that the rejection of transitivityand the Internal Aspects View does not help us to solve the challengespresented by Spectrum Arguments. Despite this, the arguments presentedby Temkin do succeed in showing that, unfortunately, our intuitions arechaotic and inconsistent. The paper argues that this has metaethicalconsequences that will be unwelcome by a moral realist such as Temkin,since they challenge the idea that our intuitions may track a moral realityexisting independently of our preferences

Se sostiene de manera habitual que los animales no pueden ser considerados personas, razón por la cual no es posible efectuar una demanda en su nombre. Este artículo examina tal idea. En él se analizan en primer lugar los distintos sentidos que el término "persona" tiene en el ámbito coloquial, metafísico, moral y jurídico, y se muestra que no hay una conexión necesaria entre estos. Asimismo, se desgranan y evalúan los distintos argumentos a favor del antropocentrismo moral, concluyéndose que ninguno de ellos tiene éxito. Finalmente, se argumenta que si se continúa manteniendo la centralidad en el plano jurídico de la categoría de la personalidad, pero se excluye del alcance de esta a los animales de especies distintas a la nuestra, se incurrirá en una posición que carecerá de justificación moral.

Este trabajo defiende dos tesis. En primer lugar, sostiene que, a pesar del amplio uso de animales no humanos en la investigación, esta cuestión no ha sido tomada realmente en serio en el ámbito de la bioética. Esta afirmación es respaldada mediante un rastreo por la literatura reciente. La segunda tesis consiste en que tal desatención no está justificada. Se asume habitualmente que los intereses de los animales no humanos no son moralmente significativos, o al menos que no lo son como los de los seres humanos. Sin embargo, ninguno de los argumentos que defienden esta idea tiene éxito. Los estudios actuales en bioética manifiestan así lo que podemos llamar un prejuicio especista. Más aún, esto conlleva asimismo que el propio uso de animales no humanos como recursos resulta cuestionable.

The moral consideration of nonhuman animals and the critique of speciesism have been defended by appeal to a variety of ethical theories. One of the main approaches in moral and political philosophy today from which to launch such a defense is egalitarianism, which is the view that we should aim at favoring the worse off by reducing inequality. This paper explains what egalitarianism is and shows the important practical consequences it has for nonhuman animals, both those that are exploited by humans and those in need of aid in the wild. Egalitarianism implies rejecting speciesism, and in practice it prescribes ceasing to exploit nonhuman animals as well as assisting them. Moreover, because they are worse off in comparison to humans, egalitarianism prescribes giving priority to the interests nonhuman animals. Due to this, egalitarianism gives us extra reasons to defend them beyond those entailed by other nonspeciesist approaches.