Aleksy Tarasenko-Struc

Although the concept of objectification is seen as a valuable tool in feminist theorizing, far less attention has been paid to animalization: treating or regarding a person as a nonhuman animal. I argue that animalization is a distinctive category of wrongdoing, modeling a theory of the phenomenon on Kantian theories of objectification in feminist philosophy. Actions are animalizing, I claim, when they embody a kind of disregard for a person's characteristically human capacities that are analogous to the fitting treatment of animals. I contend that my view overcomes standard objections to the use of the concept of animalization and shows how, despite surface similarities, animalization is different from both objectification and infantilization.

Although it has become increasingly common to theorize about dehumanization, there is a lack of even basic agreement as to how to define the concept, nor is it clear why theorists should prefer one rival concept over another. So, which concept of dehumanization should we use? I propose that this question is best addressed by considering what the concept’s function(s) might be, what the concept is for—specifically, which concern(s) the concept might satisfy. I then argue that one function of the concept of dehumanization is to satisfy our need for moral understanding of inhumanity, rather than just psychological or sociological understanding. In light of this view of the concept’s functions, I also advance a particular definition of dehumanization: dehumanization consists, in the first instance, of agential activities on the part of moral agents that embody disregard for the humanity of a person or group, where such disregard amounts to treating or regarding the dehumanized party as nonhuman. Finally, I contend that the concept’s orientation to moral understanding gives us reason to accept two further claims: that acts and attitudes can dehumanize, and that objectification is one form of dehumanization.

I defend a novel account of the wrong of subjecting people to non-consensual sterilization (NCS), particularly in the context of the state-sponsored eugenics programmes once prevalent in the United States. What makes the eugenic practice of NCS distinctively wrong, I claim, is its dehumanizing core: the fact that it is tantamount to treating people as nonhuman animals, thereby expressing the degrading social meaning that they have the value of animals. The practice of NCS is prima facie seriously wrong partly, but crucially, on these grounds. I consider and reject accounts of the wrong of NCS that make no reference to its animalizing character, such as that it violates victims’ (procreative) autonomy, amounts to treating them merely as a means, inflicts psychological harm on them, or constitutes an affront to their human dignity. My discussion suggests that the critical vocabulary of bioethics should be expanded beyond talk of rights-violations, benefits and harms, and equal treatment—and that the language of dehumanization is indispensable to bioethicists.

Many bioethicists accept the Consciousness Condition (CC): roughly, that a person can be wronged only if she can be benefited or harmed, which is possible only if she retains the capacity for consciousness. We argue that CC is false. People can be wronged even if they permanently lack consciousness and thus have no ability to experience benefit or harm. In support of this claim, we introduce a clinical case in which a profoundly vegetative patient is subjected to unauthorized pelvic examinations for the benefit of medical trainees, then show that the truth of CC falsely implies the patient is not thereby wronged. We also offer a different explanation of the wrong done to patients by such behavior: they have been treated as objects—specifically, as tools for the purposes of others. We argue that our view—the instrumentalization account—not only yields the correct verdict on that case but that it enjoys advantages not shared by bare appeals to respect for autonomy or human dignity.

Despite its prevalence today, the practice of purely performative resuscitation (PPR)—paradigmatically, the “slow code”—has attracted more critics in bioethics than defenders. The most common criticism of the slow code is that it's fundamentally deceptive or harmful, while the most common justification offered is that it may benefit the patient's loved ones, by symbolically honoring the patient or the care team's relationship with the family. I argue that critics and defenders of the slow code each have a point. Advocates of the slow code are right that not all PPR is wrongly deceptive or harmful to the patient or his family and that the symbolic aspect of medicine is itself morally significant. But the critics are also correct: slow codes are prima facie wrong. I argue that pursuing a slow code amounts to treating the patient as a tool for others' benefit—hence, treating him as an object—and that this instrumentalizing quality constitutes one core prima facie wrong of the practice. I also build a case for the idea that the slow code may not always be all‐things‐considered wrong, specifying certain limited conditions under which acts of PPR might ultimately be permissible. Thus, the symbolic dimension of medical treatment is indeed morally important, both in morally favorable and in morally problematic respects—namely, in its symbolic denial of the patient's humanity.

The practice of force-feeding dangerously malnourished patients with anorexia nervosa (AN) raises a puzzle for clinical ethics. Force-feeding AN patients may seem justified to save their lives and to help them recover from a debilitating pathological condition. Yet clinical ethics seems committed to a robust anti-paternalism principle, on which it is normally wrong to force treatment on decisionally capacitated patients for their own good. And some AN patients do retain decisional capacity, at least by standard criteria. Thus, routinely force-feeding AN patients seems to constitute an unjustifiable exception to a well-established principle of clinical decision-making. Call this the moral puzzle of AN. I examine three attempts to solve the puzzle and argue that, individually or taken together, they cannot justify force-feeding those AN patients for whom this intervention would be potentially effective at enabling recovery. I conclude that no such justification is currently available. A solution to the moral puzzle of AN may come from a reevaluation of the anti-paternalism principle, a deeper clinical understanding of the psychology of AN, or even a novel reconceptualization of decisional capacity.

Although the concept of objectification is seen as a valuable tool in feminist theorizing, far less attention has been paid to animalization: treating or regarding a person as a nonhuman animal. I argue that animalization is a distinctive category of wrongdoing, modeling a theory of the phenomenon on Kantian theories of objectification in feminist philosophy. Actions are animalizing, I claim, when they embody a kind of disregard for a person's characteristically human capacities that are analogous to the fitting treatment of animals. I contend that my view overcomes standard objections to the use of the concept of animalization and shows how, despite surface similarities, animalization is different from both objectification and infantilization.

The standard of care in the United States favors stabilizing any adult who arrives in an emergency department after a failed suicide attempt, even if he appears decisionally capacitated and refuses life‐sustaining treatment. I challenge this ubiquitous practice. Emergency clinicians generally have a moral obligation to err on the side of stabilizing even suicide attempters who refuse such interventions. This obligation reflects the fact that it is typically infeasible to determine these patients’ level of decisional capacitation—among other relevant information—in this unique setting. Nevertheless, I argue, stabilizing suicide attempters over their objection sometimes violates a basic yet insufficiently appreciated right of theirs—the right against bodily invasion. In such cases, it is at least prima facie wrong to stabilize a patient who wants to die even if they lack a contrary advance directive or medical order and suffer from no terminal physical illness.

The standard of care in the United States favors stabilizing any adult who arrives in an emergency department after a failed suicide attempt, even if he appears decisionally capacitated and refuses life-sustaining treatment. I challenge this ubiquitous practice. Emergency clinicians generally have a moral obligation to err on the side of stabilizing even suicide attempters who refuse such interventions. This obligation reflects the fact that it is typically infeasible to determine these patients’ level of decisional capacitation—among other relevant information—in this unique setting. Nevertheless, I argue, stabilizing suicide attempters over their objection sometimes violates a basic yet insufficiently appreciated right of theirs—the right against bodily invasion. In such cases, it is at least prima facie wrong to stabilize a patient who wants to die even if they lack a contrary advance directive or medical order and suffer from no terminal physical illness.

Humanism is the view that people treat others inhumanely when we fail to see them as human beings, so that our treatment of them will tend to be more humane when we (fully) see their humanity. Recently, humanist views have been criticized on the grounds that the perpetrators of inhumanity regard their victims as human and treat them inhumanely partly for this reason. I argue that the two most common objections to humanist views (and their relatives) are unpersuasive: not only does the evidence marshaled against these views fail to disprove them, it could threaten them only if some questionable assumptions were granted. By providing necessary conceptual ground clearing and routing common lines of attack, I hope to determine what it would take for a humanist project to succeed, thereby paving the way for a full defense of humanism that fulfills its explanatory ambitions.

I resolve a tension between two prominent strands of feminist social critique. On the first, the domination of women consists largely in their objectification, and the objectifying character of such domination primarily explains why it is wrong. On the second, some salient forms of domination have a distinctively intersubjective dimension that makes them crucially unlike our standard modes of relating to objects. Yet in that case, how could characterizing these acts as objectifying capture why they are wrong? Focusing on domination that seeks recognition from the subordinate, I argue that each strand contains half the truth, weaving these together. The first is correct to point out that that the concept of objectification is necessary for capturing the wrong of recognition-seeking domination, and that acts can be objectifying and ‘subjectifying’ all at once. The second strand is right to insist that domination of this sort has an irreducibly subjectifying character in light of which the concept of objectification is insufficient for clarifying its wrongness. The general lesson is that an account of the wrong of recognition- seeking domination is adequate only if it does justice to both its objectifying and subjectifying aspects.

I extend my account of social invisibility and interpersonal recognition by applying it to one form of racism: racial alienation—the failure to emotionally identify with members of another racial group on the basis of their race. I argue that leading views of racism in the analytic tradition threaten to contravene the conviction that racial alienation involves a misrecognition of the other group’s humanity. The pitfall is best avoided by developing a conception of interpersonal awareness that is informed by Wittgenstein’s remarks on other minds, particularly his point that our awareness of others as humanly minded consists in ‘an attitude towards a soul’ rather than in an 'opinion' that she has a soul.

I argue that we get an account of social invisibility that best fits our practice of moral complaint if we reject orthodoxy and accept a quite different view of what it is to see another person as a person. On my view, seeing a person as a person is inseparable from caring about her in person-specific ways—hence from a disposition to a range of interpersonal emotional responses to her point of view. Thus, a person’s humanity is invisible to us, according to this picture, when we are unreceptive to her power to influence our attitudes and will through her own attitudes and will.

I argue that Christine Korsgaard's Kantian constructivism cannot accommodate our obligations to others. Because she holds that all of our obligations are grounded in our obligating ourselves, she is committed to the view that our obligations to others are grounded in corresponding obligations to ourselves. Yet this conclusion is objectionable on substantive moral grounds. The problem is that she embraces an egocentric conception of authority, on which we originally have the authority to obligate ourselves whereas others only have the authority to obligate us because we grant it to them. The solution is to adopt a more thoroughly social conception of authority and autonomy.