Oscar Horta

Humans often intervene in the wild for anthropocentric or environmental reasons. An example of such interventions is the reintroduction of wolves in places where they no longer live in order to create what has been called an “ecology of fear”, which is being currently discussed in places such as Scotland. In the first part of this paper I discuss the reasons for this measure and argue that they are not compatible with a nonspeciesist approach. Then, I claim that if we abandon a speciesist viewpoint we should change completely the way in which we should intervene in nature. Rather than intervening for environmental or anthropocentric reasons, we should do it in order to reduce the harms that nonhuman animals suffer. This conflicts significantly with some fundamental environmental ideals whose defence is not compatible with the consideration of the interests of nonhuman animals.

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

In spite of the considerable literature nowadays existing on the issue of the moral exclusion of nonhuman animals, there is still work to be done concerning the characterization of the conceptual framework with which this question can be appraised. This paper intends to tackle this task. It starts by defining speciesism as the unjustified disadvantageous consideration or treatment of those who are not classified as belonging to a certain species. It then clarifies some common misunderstandings concerning what this means. Next, it rejects the idea that there are different kinds of speciesism. Such an idea may result from confusion because there are (1) different ways in which speciesism can be defended; and (2) different speciesist positions, that is, different positions that assume speciesism among their premises. Depending on whether or not these views assume other criteria for moral consideration apart from speciesism, they can be combined or simple speciesist positions. But speciesism remains in all cases the same idea. Finally, the paper examines the concept of anthropocentrism, the disadvantageous treatment or consideration of those who are not members of the human species. This notion must be conceptually distinguished from speciesism and from misothery (aversion to nonhuman animals). Anthropocentrism is shown to be refuted because it either commits a petitio principia fallacy or it falls prey to two arguments: the argument from species overlap (widely but misleadingly known as “argument from marginal cases”) and the argument from relevance. This rebuttal identifies anthropocentrism as a speciesist view.

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