Oscar Horta

Según la concepción del daño de la muerte en función del interés relativo al momento, propuesta por Jeff McMahan, nuestro interés en vivir no viene determinado sólo por el valor de nuestra vida futura, sino también por los vínculos prudenciales que nos atan a ésta. McMahan sostiene que tales relaciones dependen de nuestra complejidad psicológica. Esta propuesta respalda algunas asunciones comunes acerca del daño de la muerte. Pero también cuestiona los planteamientos antropocéntricos acerca del valor comparativo de las vidas de los seres humanos, pues toda una serie de seres humanos (como los bebés y aquellos con diversidad funcional intelectual notable) tienen unas capacidades psicológicas inferiores a las de muchos animales no humanos. Por otra parte, no está claro que la fuerza de las relaciones prudenciales venga de hecho determinada por la complejidad psicológica. According to the Time-relative Interest Account of the harm of death, which Jeff McMahan has proposed, our interest in living is not only determined by the value of our future life, but also by the prudential ties which bind us to it. McMahan maintains that such relations depend significantly on our psychological complexity. This proposal backs up some common assumptions as regards the harm of death. But it also questions anthropocentric views regarding the comparative value of the lives of human beings, since a number of humans (such as babies and those with significant intellectual disabilities) have psychological capacities below those of many nonhuman animals. Apart from this, it is not clear whether the strength of prudential relations is actually determined by psychological complexity

Nonhuman animals are routinarily used as resources for us to use. An important argument in the literature on the issue claims that this is justified because we are not attached to them by the emotional ties that bind us to other human beings. This line of reasoning is examined here and found to be faulty as regards both its factual and its normative assumptions. This implies that the burden of proof rests on the side of those who want to defend the use of nonhuman animals. The paper concludes with the claim that until a sound defense of anthropocentrism is provided, we should assume that such use is not morally justified

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