Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Animals cannot make claims of justice on humans — Carmelics
    Home/Justice & Punishment
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Animals cannot make claims of justice on humans

    Justice & PunishmentRights & Liberty
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Animals lack the moral power to act on principles of justice themselves
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Animals cannot distinguish what is justly owed to them from what is not
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Animals cannot determine what they owe to others — whether to humans or to other non-human animals — as a matter of justice
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Capacity to suffer, not capacity for reciprocity, is the morally relevant threshold for being owed justice (Bentham, Singer).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The reciprocity condition in P4 would also exclude permanently cognitively disabled humans from claims of justice, which most theories reject as a reductio.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Nussbaum's capabilities approach grounds justice in the frustration of species-typical flourishing, requiring no reciprocal agency from the claimant.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Animals demonstrably have interest-states that can be wrongfully set back, and having a wrongfully setback interest is sufficient for a claim of justice on Feinberg's rights analysis.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Justice & PunishmentRights & Liberty

    Connections

    1 topic

    Moral Responsibility4 linked

    Related

    Animals cannot determine what they owe to others — whether to humans or to other...Animals cannot distinguish what is justly owed to them from what is notAnimals demonstrably have interest-states that can be wrongfully set back, and h...Animals lack the moral power to act on principles of justice themselves
    +4 moreShow less
    Capacity to suffer, not capacity for reciprocity, is the morally relevant thresh...Justice involves a kind of reciprocity such that an agent to whom justice is due...Nussbaum's capabilities approach grounds justice in the frustration of species-t...The reciprocity condition in P4 would also exclude permanently cognitively disab...

    Similar

    Animals cannot determine what they owe to others — whether to humans o...80%Human rights claims make the subject of those rights a matter of justi...78%Animals lack the moral power to act on principles of justice themselve...75%If there is no property, there is no right to be violated, and therefo...75%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: justice
    View source passageHide passage
    But the claim that justice only applies to participants in co-operative practices is anyway vulnerable to the objection that it risks excluding seriously disabled people, people living in isolated communities, and future generations from the scope of justice, so it does not seem compelling as a claim about justice in general (see further below). Might there be other reasons why animals cannot make claims of justice on us? Another Rawls-inspired suggestion is that animals lack the necessary moral
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit