Abstract
The paper discusses various concepts of ‘species equality’ and ‘species superiority’ and the assumptions concerning intrinsic value on which they depend. I investigate what philosophers from the traditional deontological (Taylor and Lombardi) and utilitarian (Singer and Attfield) perspectives have meant by their claims for species equality. I attempt to provide a framework of intrinsic values that justifies one sense in which members of a species can be said to be superior to members of another species.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Attfield
Robin
1981 . “The Good of Trees ,” The Journal of Value Inquiry 15 : 49ff .
2.
Attfield
Robin
1983 . The Ethics of Environmental Concern. New York: Columbia University Press.
3.
Attfield
Robin
1987 . A Theory of Value and Obligation. London: Croom Helm.
4.
Butchvarov
Panayot
1989 . Skepticism in Ethics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
5.
Jamieson
Dale
1990 . “Rights, Justice, and Duties to Provide Assistance: A Critique of Regan's Theory of Rights ”, Ethics January: 349 –62 .
6.
Lombardi
Louis
1983 . “Inherent Worth, Respect, and Rights ”, Environmental Ethics 5 : 257 –70 .
7.
Mill
J.S.
1979 . Utilitarianism. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co.
8.
Moore
G.E.
1903 . Principia Ethica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9.
Regan
Tom
and
Singer
Peter
(eds) 1989 . Animal Rights and Human Obligations. Englewood Clifs, N. J.: Prentice Hall.
10.
Ross
William David
1930 . The Right and the Good . Oxford: Clarendon Press
11.
Singer
Peter
1977 . Animal Liberation. New York: Avon Books.
12.
Taylor
Paul
1986 . Respect for Nature. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press.
13.
Thompson
Janna
1990 . “A Refutation of Environmental Ethics ”, Environmental Ethics 12 : 147 –60 .
14.
VanDeVeer
Donald
1979 . “Interspecific Justice ”, Inquiry 22 : 55 –70 .
15.
Warren
Karen
1990 . “The Power and Promise of Ecological Feminism ”, Environmental Ethics 12 : 129ff.