Las éticas centradas en el sufrimiento y sus implicaciones para el cuestionamiento del uso de los animales

  1. Mateo Rozas 1
  2. Ángeles Cancino Rodezno 2
  3. Oscar Horta 1
  1. 1 Universidade de Santiago de Compostela
    info

    Universidade de Santiago de Compostela

    Santiago de Compostela, España

    ROR https://ror.org/030eybx10

  2. 2 Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
    info

    Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

    Ciudad de México, México

    ROR https://ror.org/01tmp8f25

Revista:
Revista de filosofía

ISSN: 0798-1171

Año de publicación: 2021

Volumen: 38

Número: 99

Páginas: 81-97

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.5281/ZENODO.5639795 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Revista de filosofía

Resumen

En este artículo se explica en qué consisten las éticas centradas en el sufrimiento, presenta algunas de las principales razones a su favor y expone cuáles son sus implicaciones con respecto a la consideración moral de los animales. Se argumenta que conforme a estas éticas los usos como recursos de los animales lesivos para estos deberán ser rechazados. A continuación, se examinan las posiciones que aceptan el uso de los animales siempre que este tenga lugar reduciendo los daños infligidos a estos. Se presentarán una serie de razones por las que tales posiciones resultan cuestionables y por las que van a entrar en conflicto con las implicaciones de las éticas centradas en el sufrimiento.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Adams, Carol J. (1996) "Caring about Suffering: A Feminist Exploration", in Donovan, Josephine & Adams, Carol J. (eds.), Beyond Animal Rights: A Feminist Caring Ethic for the Treatment of Animals, Continuum, New York, 1996, pp. 170–196.
  • Arrhenius, Gustaf, and Krister Bykvist. “Future Generations and Interpersonal Compensations : Moral Aspects of Energy Use.” Uppsala Prints and Preprints in Philosophy, 1995:21
  • Baumeister, R. F.; Bratslavsky, E.; Finkenauer, C. & Vohs, K. D. (2001) “Bad is stronger than good”, Review of General Psychology, 5, pp. 323-370.
  • Benatar, David. Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.
  • Bernstein, M. H. (1998) On moral considerability: An essay on who morally matters, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Bernstein, M. H. (2015) The moral equality of humans and animals, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
  • Broom, D. M. (2014) Sentience and animal welfare, Wallingford: CABI.
  • Carruthers, Peter, La cuestión de los animales: teoría moral aplicada, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995 [título original: The Animal Issue: Moral Theory in Practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992].
  • Chao, Roger. “Negative Average Preference Utilitarianism.” Journal of Philosophy of Life 2 (2012): 55–66.
  • Clark, S. R. L. (1977) The moral status of animals, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Crisp, Roger, "Well-Being", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2017 [2001]) https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/well-being.
  • Crisp, Roger. 2003. “Equality, Priority, and Compassion.” Ethics 113 (4): 745-63.
  • Curtis, Stanley E., (1986). “The Case for Intensive Farming of Food Animals”, in Mickley, & Fox (eds.), Advances in Animal Welfare Science 1986/87, Washington, DC: The Humane Society of the United States 245-55.
  • Dolan, Kevin, Ethics, Animals and Science, Blackwell, Oxford, 1999.
  • Donovan, J. & Adams, C. J. (eds.), (2007), The Feminist Care Tradition in Animal Ethics: A Reader, Columbia University Press, New York.
  • Dorado, Daniel. “La consideración moral de los animales no humanos en los últimos cuarenta años: una bibliografía anotada.” Télos 17 (2010): 47–63.
  • Dunayer, Joan (2004): Speciesism, Derwood: Ryce.
  • Ética Animal (2020) Introducción al sufrimiento de los animales salvajes, Oakland: Ética Animal, disponible en http://www.animal-ethics.org/introduccion-sufrimiento-animales-salvajes.
  • Faria C., Igualdad, prioridad y animales no humanos, en Ávila Gaitán I. D.(ed.), La cuestión animal(ista), Desde Abajo, Bogotá, 2016 [2014], 327-340 (título original: “Equality, Priority and Nonhuman Animals.” Dilemata 14: 225–236).
  • Fehige, C. (1998) “A pareto principle for possible people”, in Fehige, C. & Wessels, U. (eds.) Preferences, Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 508-543.
  • Fishcount (2019a) “Numbers of farmed fish slaughtered each year”, Fishcount.org.uk, http://fishcount.org.uk/fish-count-estimates-2/numbers-of-farmed-fish-slaughtered-each-year.
  • Fishcount (2019b) “Numbers of fish caught from the wild each year”, Fishcount.org.uk, http://fishcount.org.uk/fish-count-estimates-2/numbers-of-fish-caught-from-the-wild-each-year.
  • Fletcher, G., 2016, The Philosophy of Well-being: An Introduction, London: Routledge.
  • Francione, G. (1995) Animals, property and the law, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
  • Francione, G. (1996) Rain without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
  • Franklin, Julian H., Animal Rights and Moral Philosophy, Columbia University Press, New York, 2005.
  • Fraser, D., (2008) Understanding animal welfare: the science in its cultural context, New York: John Wiley and Sons.
  • Frey, R. G. (1980) Interests and Rights: The Case against Animals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Gloor, L. (2019 [2016]) “The case for suffering-focused ethics”, Center on Long-Term Risk, https://longtermrisk.org/the-case-for-suffering-focused-ethics/
  • Haynes, Richard P. (2008) Animal Welfare: Competing Conceptions And Their Ethical Implications, Dordrecht: Springer.
  • Holtug, N., 2003. Welfarism – The very idea. Utilitas, 15(2), pp.151-174.
  • Holtug, Nils, “Equality for Animals”, in Ryberg, Jesper; Petersen, Thomas & Wolf, Clark (eds.), New Waves in Applied Ethics, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, 2007, 1–24.
  • Horta, O. & Albersmeier, F. “Defining Speciesism”, Philosophy Compass, 15/11, 2020, 1-9.
  • Horta, O. “Igualitarismo, igualación a la baja, antropocentrismo y valor de la vida”, Revista de Filosofía (Universidad Complutense de Madrid), 35, 2010, 133-152.
  • Hui, K. (2014). “Moral Anthropocentrism Is Unavoidable”, The American Journal of Bioethics, 14, pp. 25-25.
  • Hurka, T. (2010) “Asymmetries in value”, Noûs, 44, pp. 199-223.
  • Hursthouse, R. (2000) Ethics, Humans and Other Animals, London, Routledge.
  • Keller, S. (2009). Welfarism. Philosophy Compass, 4(1), 82-95.
  • Korsgaard, C. M. (2018) Fellow creatures: Our obligations to the other animals, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Leahy, Michael P.T. (1991) Against Liberation: Putting Animals in Perspective, London: Routledge.
  • Leighton, Jonathan (2011) The battle for compassion: Ethics in an apathetic universe, New York: Algora.
  • Lynch, Tony & Wells, David, “Non-Anthropocentrism? A Killing Objection”, Environmental Values, 7, 1998, 151-63.
  • Matheny, G. (2006) ‘Utilitarianism and Animals’, in P. Singer (ed.), In Defense of Animals: The Second Wave. Malden: Blackwell, pp. 13-25.
  • Mathison, E. (2018) Asymmetries and ill-being, PhD, Toronto: University of Toronto [accessed on 23 April 2021].
  • Mayerfeld, J. (1996) “The moral asymmetry of happiness and suffering”, Southern Journal of Philosophy, 34, pp. 317-338.
  • Mayerfeld, J. (1999) Suffering and moral responsibility, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Midgley, Mary. 1993. Animals and Why They Matter. Athens: The University of Georgia Press.
  • Narveson, Jan (1977) “Animal Rights”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy 7, p. 161-78.
  • Ng, Y.-K. (1995) “Towards welfare biology: Evolutionary economics of animal consciousness and suffering”, Biology and Philosophy 10, 255-285.
  • Nobis, Nathan, “Vegetarianism and Virtue: Does Consequentialism Demand Too Little?”, Social Theory and Practice, 28, 2002, 135-56.
  • Nussbaum, M. C. (2006) Las fronteras de la justicia, Barcelona: Paidós (título original: Frontiers of justice: Disability, nationality, species membership, Cambridge: Harvard University Press).
  • Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la alimentación y la agricultura – FAO (2020) “Ganadería primaria”, FAOSTAT – Datos sobre alimentación y agricultura, http://fao.org/faostat/es/#data/QL.
  • Petrinovich, L. (1999) Darwinian Dominion: Animal Welfare and Human Interests. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Pluhar, E. B. (1995) Beyond prejudice: The moral significance of human and nonhuman animals, Durham: Duke University Press.
  • Reardon, M. (2011). “Animal Ethics: Animal Welfare or Animal'Illfare'?”, Ethical Perspectives, 18, 269-285
  • Regan, T. (2013 [1983]) En defensa de los derechos de los animales, Ciudad de México: Fondo de Cultura Económica (título original: The case for animal rights, Berkeley: University of California Press).
  • Rowe, A. (2020) “The scale of direct human impact on invertebrates”, OSF Preprints, doi:10.31219/osf.io/psvk2.
  • Rowlands 2009 [1998] Animal Rights: Moral Theory and Practice, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Rozin, P. & Royzman, E. B. (2001) “Negativity bias, Negativity dominance, and contagion”, Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, pp. 296-320.
  • Ryder, Richard D. “Painism Defended.” Think 14, no. 41 (2015): 47–55.
  • Sapontzis, S. F. (1987) Morals, reason, and animals, Philadelphia: Temple University Press
  • Singer, P. (1980). Utilitarianism and vegetarianism. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 325-337.
  • Singer, P. (2011 [1975]) Liberación Animal, Madrid: Taurus (título original: Animal Liberation: A new ethics for our treatment of animals, Nueva York: New York Review/Random House, 1975)
  • Sztybel, David, “The Rights of Animal Persons”, Animal Liberation Philosophy and Policy Journal, 4, 2006, 1-37.
  • Torres, Mikel 2009 “Capacidades y derechos de los animales", Dilemata, 1, 33-47.
  • Tranöy, K. E. (1967) “Asymmetries in ethics: On the structure of a general theory of ethics”, Inquiry, 10, pp. 351-372.
  • VanDeVeer, D. (1979) ‘On Beasts, Persons and the Original Position’, The Monist, 62, pp. 368-77.
  • Velasco Sesma, A. (2017) La ética animal: ¿una cuestión feminista?, Madrid: Cátedra.
  • Vinding, M. (2020) Suffering-focused ethics: Defense and implications, Copenhagen: Ratio Ethica [accessed on 23 May 2021].
  • Walker, A. D. M. “Negative Utilitarianism.” Mind 83 (1974): 424–28.
  • Williams, B. (2011 [2006]) “El prejuicio humano”, en La filosofía como una disciplina humanística, Ciudad de México: Fondo de Cultura Economica, 157-175 (título original: “The human prejudice”, en Philosophy as a humanistic discipline, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 135-152).