Critique of Callicott's Biosocial Moral Theory
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 15021787 |
|---|---|
| Authors | John Hadley (0000-0001-9641-028X, Indiana University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2007 |
| Volume | 12 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 67-78 |
| Publication date | 2007-03-01 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Ethics & the Environment (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1085-6633 • E-ISSN: 1535-5306 |
| Publisher | Indiana University Press (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.2979/ete.2007.12.1.67 |
| OpenAlex | W1990709507 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
| References cited | 9 |
J. Baird Callicott's claim to have unified environmentalism and animal liberation should be rejected by holists and liberationists. By making relations of intimacy necessary for moral considerability, Callicott excludes from the moral community nonhuman animals unable to engage in intimate relations due to the circumstances of their confinement. By failing to afford moral protection to animals in factory farms and research laboratories, Callicott's biosocial moral theory falls short of meeting a basic moral demand of liberationists. Moreover, were Callicott to include factory farm and research animals inside the moral community by affording them universal or non-communitarian rights, his theory would fall foul of environmentalists who seek to promote ecosystem stability and integrity via therapeutic hunting. If factory farm and research animals can have rights irrespective of their particular circumstances, then so can free- roaming animals from overabundant and exotic species
Animal ethics · Animal rights · Biosocial theory · Criminology · Environmental ethics · Environmentalism · Political science · Politics · Sociology · Environmental Philosophy and Ethics · Geographies of human-animal interactions · Law · Philosophy · Psychology · Religion, Ecology, and Ethics · Social Psychology
| Citations per year | 0.13 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2010 - 2014 (5) |
| Highly cited | No |