Tethos

This last Tuesday I saw Angus Taylor speak at a book launch at Vancouver Island University. After the talk that was centered on the ethical treatment of animals I immediately purchased his book titled ‘Animals and Ethics.’ The book examines the different philosophical arguments for and against the ethical treatment of animals. So far the book has been absolutely enlightening and he dismembers many of the arguments for treating animals with cruelty or using them for consumption. A very interesting argument he puts forward is that of marginal cases.

“The argument from marginal cases makes reference to the many instances of humans who fall significantly below the level of mental ability typically exhibited by adult humans. It points to the overlap in capacities (cognitive or sensitive) between humans and animals in order to make the claim that we must either include at least some animals in the moral community or else exclude some humans. If the criterion that we use as a ticket to the moral community – be it moral agency or self-consciousness or rationality or simply the ability to experience pain and pleasure – permits to include all humans, then it will necessarily include at least some animals. And if it excludes all animals, then it will necessarily exclude at least some humans.”

What the argument from marginal cases asks of those who see fit to mistreat or eat animals is one of consistency. The criteria of sensual and cognitive experiences make it very difficult to draw a line around what animals are appropriate to eat and be consistent. He proceeds to argue that the only philosophical view that can effectively deal with marginal cases and justify the mistreatment of animals is one held by contractarians.

I am only a few chapters in but can already tell this is going to be a great read.