Richard Healey

Are domestication and justice compatible? This chapter utilises reflections from the authors’ relationship with two magpies as a springboard for thinking about the wrongs of domestication. The chapter argues that reflection on liminal animals’ agential capacities and powers shines a light on the structural injustice inherent to relationships between humans and domesticated animals. In short, the practices and processes of domestication inevitably expose animals to unnecessary risk of harm and unjustifiably curtail their abilities for self-determination. The chapter ends by considering and rejecting the claim that domesticated animals are better off than liminal animals since we can cater for their every need.

Are domestication and justice compatible? This chapter utilises reflections from the authors’ relationship with two magpies as a springboard for thinking about the wrongs of domestication. The chapter argues that reflection on liminal animals’ agential capacities and powers shines a light on the structural injustice inherent to relationships between humans and domesticated animals. In short, the practices and processes of domestication inevitably expose animals to unnecessary risk of harm and unjustifiably curtail their abilities for self-determination. The chapter ends by considering and rejecting the claim that domesticated animals are better off than liminal animals since we can cater for their every need.

The power of consent enables one person to give another person a moral permission by releasing them from a duty. The examples of consent to sex, surgery, and the sharing of property are familiar. This article considers whether consent requires uptake from the consent-receiver if they are to acquire this moral permission. Most philosophers writing about the ethics of consent suggest that uptake is not necessary. This article argues, by contrast, that we should endorse an uptake condition for consent-based permissions. It does so by locating an uptake condition within a general account of wronging and its interpersonal significance. On the view defended, consent-sensitive duties should be interpreted as requiring a consent-receiver to treat consent as a deliberative constraint on action. On this view, if a consent-receiver acts without recognizing that consent has been given, they violate the consent-sensitive duty they owe to the consent-giver.

These essays in natural philosophy were all written from a pragmatist point of view developed over the past 15 years. They show what work pragmatism can do in science as well as philosophy. Many essays express a view of quantum theory developed using ideas of contemporary pragmatist philosophers: other essays apply these more widely to science and metaphysics. Quantum models are used not to represent physical systems but to offer good advice on how to represent them. The role of a quantum state is not to describe a system but to yield objective probabilities for alternative outcomes of events involving it. A situated agent could use these probabilities to decide what to do, and one can use them to explain phenomena. They are probabilities for physical events including measurements: pragmatist inferentialism helps one to say what these are, and when they have outcomes, thereby resolving the quantum measurement problem. One can use quantum theory locally to explain non-localized correlations, and why quantum field theory poses no ontological problem. Despite its unrivaled success, quantum theory offers no scientific image of the physical world on which a naturalist could construct a metaphysics. There are structural reasons why the rest of physical theory cannot be reduced to quantum theory. This pragmatist view of quantum theory is not instrumentalist. One essay explains why it should count as realist. Other essays defend pragmatist views of scientific laws and explanations as well as causation, truth, and objectivity.

While love and personal relationships are the subjects of rich and sophisticated literatures, philosophical writing about the end of special relationships is much harder to come by. However, the end of special relationships is a significant part of our lives and gives rise to a number of philosophical questions. In this article, I explore the normative significance of the end of special relationships, with a particular focus on the case of breaking up in the context of committed romantic relationships. Specifically, I address three questions. First, what does A do when A breaks up with B? Second, what normative effect will A’s breaking up with B have on the relationship-based duties, reasons, and permissions that are partly constitutive of A and B’s relationship? Third, how is the ability to break up consistent with the commitment that many longer-term romantic relationships involve? In response to the first and second questions, I argue that breaking up is a neglected example of a normative power and develop a tripartite account of the normative effects of exercising this power. In response to the third question, I develop an account of the nature and value of commitment within romantic relationships and show how the power to exit a relationship by breaking up is consistent with this form of commitment.

This article argues that the relations of social and political power that obtain between humans and pets are illegitimate. We begin by showing that pets, a largely neglected population in political philosophy, are subject to socially and politically organised power, which stands in need of justification. We then argue that pets have three moral complaints against the relations of power to which they are subject. First, our power over pets disrespects their moral independence: the fact that they are not simply available to be used to serve the interests or projects of others. Second, our power over pets systematically sets back their interests in exercising control over their own body, actions, and environment. Third, in subjecting pets to asymmetric relations of power in which they are heavily dependent on humans for the satisfaction of their interests, we subject them to objectionable risks of harm. Together, these complaints support our thesis that the power relations central to the insitution of pet keeping are illegitimate. The practical upshot is that we have a strong moral reason to abolish this institution.

Physics might show that space-time is an emergent structure without describing its ontological basis. Space and time are fundamental to metaphysics and physics. Their union remained fundamental after special relativity doomed each separately to fade away as a mere shadow of the space-time that Einstein later took to exist only as a structural quality of the gravitational field of general relativity. But problems meshing general relativity with quantum theory appear to show that space-time structure is not fundamental but emerges within a quantum theory of gravity. In a pragmatist view, quantum theory is typically applied not to represent target systems but to guide rational credence about events involving other systems. Applied to a gravitational field, quantum theory may guide credence about events in an emergent space-time without itself representing that field. If so, a fundamental physical theory would not describe any ultimate ground of space-time and its contents.

Any quantum theory of gravity faces the measurement problem. Carlo Rovelli sees his relational interpretation as offering a solution to this problem when applied to his favored loop quantum gravity (LQG). I examine the prospects of Rovelli’s relationalism in LQG. In LQG it is not clear what physical systems there are at a fundamental level with no spacetime. But implementing Rovelli’s relational interpretation in the context of LQG requires an account of interaction and a model of observer systems whose relational states represent determinate outcomes. Even if no such account is forthcoming at a fundamental level in LQG, it might still be available in a limit at which spacetime has emerged. But to use this account effectively to address the measurement problem, it would be necessary to reconcile the observer-relativity of measurement outcomes with a basic norm of scientific objectivity.

The power of consent enables one person to give another person a moral permission by releasing them from a duty. The examples of consent to sex, surgery, and the sharing of property are familiar. This article considers whether consent requires uptake from the consent-receiver if they are to acquire this moral permission. Most philosophers writing about the ethics of consent suggest that uptake is not necessary. This article argues, by contrast, that we should endorse an uptake condition for consent-based permissions. It does so by locating an uptake condition within a general account of wronging and its interpersonal significance. On the view defended, consent-sensitive duties should be interpreted as requiring a consent-receiver to treat consent as a deliberative constraint on action. On this view, if a consent-receiver acts without recognizing that consent has been given, they violate the consent-sensitive duty they owe to the consent-giver.

This article argues that the relations of social and political power that obtain between humans and pets are illegitimate. We begin by showing that pets, a largely neglected population in political philosophy, are subject to socially and politically organised power, which stands in need of justification. We then argue that pets have three moral complaints against the relations of power to which they are subject. First, our power over pets disrespects their moral independence: the fact that they are not simply available to be used to serve the interests or projects of others. Second, our power over pets systematically sets back their interests in exercising control over their own body, actions, and environment. Third, in subjecting pets to asymmetric relations of power in which they are heavily dependent on humans for the satisfaction of their interests, we subject them to objectionable risks of harm. Together, these complaints support our thesis that the power relations central to the institution of pet keeping are illegitimate. The practical upshot is that we have a strong moral reason to abolish this institution.

While love and personal relationships are the subjects of rich and sophisticated literatures, philosophical writing about the end of special relationships is much harder to come by. However, the end of special relationships is a significant part of our lives and gives rise to a number of philosophical questions. In this article, I explore the normative significance of the end of special relationships, with a particular focus on the case of breaking up in the context of committed romantic relationships. Specifically, I address three questions. First, what does A do when A breaks up with B? Second, what normative effect will A’s breaking up with B have on the relationship-based duties, reasons, and permissions that are partly constitutive of A and B’s relationship? Third, how is the ability to break up consistent with the commitment that many longer-term romantic relationships involve? In response to the first and second questions, I argue that breaking up is a neglected example of a normative power and develop a tripartite account of the normative effects of exercising this power. In response to the third question, I develop an account of the nature and value of commitment within romantic relationships and show how the power to exit a relationship by breaking up is consistent with this form of commitment.

Recent years have seen a proliferation of philosophical work on consent. Within this body of work, philosophers often appeal to an account of the interests, values, or functions that underpin the power of consent. By far the most commonly cited value realized by the power of consent is the promotion and protection of the power-holder’s autonomy. This focus on autonomy yields what I call the Gate Opener Model of consent, according to which the central valuable function of consent is to give the power-holder control over whether other people can act in certain ways. In this article, I argue that the Gate Opener Model of consent is inadequate. I then defend an alternative Relational Model of consent, according to which a central valuable function of consent is to enable a non-instrumentally valuable form of interaction between people.

Much of the debate around requirements for the free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous peoples has focused on enabling indigenous communities to participate in various forms of democratic decision-making alongside the state and other actors. Against this backdrop, this article sets out to defend three claims. The first two of these claims are conceptual in nature: (i) Giving (collective) consent and participating in the making of (collective) decisions are distinct activities; (ii) Despite some scepticism, there is a coherent conception of collective consent available to us, continuous with the notion of individual consent familiar from discussions in medical and sexual ethics. The third claim is normative: (iii) Participants in debates about free, prior, and informed consent must keep this distinction in view. That is because a group’s ability to give or withhold consent, and not only participate in making decisions, will play an important role in realising that collectives’ right to self-determination.

The normative power of consent plays a central role in enabling individuals to permissibly interact with one another. However, in the philosophical literature, the relationship between consent and permissible action is not always well understood. In this article I outline an account of the normative effect of valid consent, in order to clarify this relationship. I first argue that consent’s primary moral significance lies in its effect upon our interpersonal moral relationships. Specifically, I argue that valid consent serves to cancel a directed duty owed to the consenter. Other things being equal, this equips the consentee with a directed permission: they will no longer wrong the consenter by acting in the consented to manner. However, this account does not yet explain how consent impacts upon the all things considered permissibility of an action. On the assumption that all things considered permissibility is a function of an agent’s reasons for action, we require an account of consent’s effect on those reasons. I consider, and then reject, Michelle Dempsey’s recent suggestion that consent affects a consentee’s reasons for action by granting them an exclusionary permission. I propose that we should instead understand consent to function as a cancelling permission.

In this article, we develop and defend an account of the normative significance of nonhuman animal agency. In particular, we examine how animals’ agency interests impact upon the moral permissibility of our interactions with them. First, we defend the claim that nonhuman animals sometimes have rights to self-determination. However, unlike typical adult humans, nonhuman animals cannot exercise this right through the giving or withholding of consent. This combination of claims generates a puzzle about the permissibility of our interactions with nonhuman animals. If animals sometimes have rights to self-determination, but lack the capacity to consent, then when, if ever, is it permissible for us to touch them, hold them, bathe them, or confine them? In the second half of the article, we develop a solution to this puzzle. We argue that while we cannot obtain animals’ consent, they can engage in authoritative communications of will through acts of “assent” and “dissent.”