Animal Ethics in Context

by Clare Palmer

It is widely agreed that because animals feel pain we should not make them suffer gratuitously. Some ethical theories go even further: because of the capacities that they possess, animals have the right not to be harmed or killed. These views concern what not to do to animals, but we also face questions about when we should, and should not, assist animals that are hungry or distressed. Should we feed a starving stray kitten? And if so, does this commit us, if we are to be consistent, to feeding wild animals during a hard winter?

In this controversial book, Clare Palmer advances a theory that claims, with respect to assisting animals, that what is owed to one is not necessarily owed to all, even if animals share similar psychological capacities. Context, history, and relation can be critical ethical factors. If animals live independently in the wild, their fate is not any of our moral business. Yet if humans create dependent animals, or destroy their habitats, we may have a responsibility to assist them. Such arguments are familiar in human cases-we think that parents have special obligations to their children, for example, or that some groups owe reparations to others. Palmer develops such relational concerns in the context of wild animals, domesticated animals, and urban scavengers, arguing that different contexts can create different moral relationships.

Genres: Philosophy

216 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2010

Reviews

[Dayton Martindale · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting ethics book in that she begins with a rough intuition (that most of the time we aren’t required to assist wild animals even if we could do so effectively) and then attempts to build out the most plausible arguments that would justify the intuition. So, rather than start with a theory and build toward a conclusion, she starts with a conclusion and builds out a supporting theory (more or less). I did not always find it super convincing but still appreciated it, it was useful to work out where I found her arguments compelling and where I disagreed, and I thought she wrote clearly.

[Cheryl · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is one of my favorites. Palmer describes her account as an "add-on" to the traditional animal rights view (like Tom Regan's and Gary Francione's). While Regan and Francione spend most of their discussions describing how NOT to harm nonhuman animals, Palmer invites us to consider our moral obligations to HELP animals- especially those who we have made or caused to be vulnerable and dependent due to OUR actions. As much as I appreciate Regan's theory of animal rights, it is arguably incomplete- and Palmer does a fine job pursing a complete animal rights theory.

[Bryan · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think Palmer makes an important contribution in this book in how humans should relate ethically to wild animals. Her main thesis is that we have one negative ethical obligation, which is essentially non-interference, unless human actions have caused some harm to wild animals, in which case it is permissible to help them, and in certain cases, humans may be obligated to help. Palmer is very thorough in developing her arguments, but I get the sense it could have been accomplished in a great deal fewer words.

[Joshua Duffy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very thought-provoking, but out of reach, I think, for most people interested in the topic. Palmer basically argues that a case can be made that we have a greater obligation to help/assist domesticated animals than wild ones; but after reading the arguments she presents against this view, I tend to have more sympathy for them lol. As I said, thought provoking, but not the easiest to grasp. Her writing layout, philosophically is pretty tight tho.