Animals and the Scope of Justice

Abstract

Animals share our physical world, but the moral rules, values, and concerns about fairness that apply to those within our scope of justice rarely apply to animals. This paper reports an experiment that investigated the effect of three variables hypothesized to modify subjects' inclusion of animals in their scope of justice: (1) the animal's similarity to people, ( 2 ) the animal's utility to people, and (3) the severity of conflict between people and the animal. Three hundred and sixty-three high school students read materials that led them to perceive an animal, the Bombardier beetle (Brachinus), as similar or dissimilar to people and as beneficial or harmful. Subjects then read a low-conflict scenario and a high-conflict scenario, each followed by dependent measures. The findings indicated that subjects' scope of justice was modified by the perceived utility of the animal and by conflict severity. Surprisingly, perceived similarity in the highconflict scenario decreased subjects' scope of justice. The paper discusses the implications of these findings for theory and for environmental conservation.

Public Participation and Institutional Fit: A Social–Psychological Perspective

“…Hence, Cayuga Heights residents' more pronounced concern about overpopulation, and stronger dislike of elk and deer, may explain why they were more supportive of taking matters into their own hands (cf. Mohai 1985, Opotow 1993. These preferences may have been driven by different lifestyle choices associated with higher socioeconomic status, for example, how different stakeholder groups use their land, or other unmeasured factors, such as different wilderness norms in Colorado than in New York (Clayton and Opotow 2003b).…”

The humanity of what we eat: Conceptions of human uniqueness among vegetarians and omnivores

“…This research suggests that meat avoidance may be linked with the emotion of disgust and perception of unjust superiority in the situation of animal consumption. Both of them seem to be consequences of including animals into broader scope of justice (Opotow, 1993). We suppose, however, that the inclusion of animals into the scope of justice by vegetarians is embedded in even more basic phenomenon: Attribution of 'uniquely human' psychological characteristics to animals.…”

“…The increasing awareness of the ethical character of lay-persons dietary choices is also reflected in academic research. There is an ongoing debate in philosophy whether animals should be included in the scope of the principles of justice (Elliott, 1984;Opotow, 1993;Rawls, 1971), while psychologists study extensively the sources of human cruelty towards animals (Plous, 1993;Vollum, Bufington-Vollum, & Longmire, 2004).…”

“…People attribute higher cognitive functions to animals that are perceived as more similar to them (Eddy, Gallup, & Povinelli, 1993) and animal owners often attribute certain secondary emotions to their horses and dogs (Morris, Doe, & Godsell, 2008). Certain animals (those perceived as not conflicted with humans) are even included into the human scope of justice (Opotow, 1993).…”

“…as source of meat) would cause lesser ascription of human features to them. Cues existing in the literature seem quite contradicting: The utility of an animal was leading to its inclusion into human scope of justice (Opotow, 1993); however, other findings suggest that perception of animals' utility is unrelated to attitudes towards animal abuse and cruelty against animals (Vollum et al, 2004). The perceived utility of animals, combined with knowledge about the cruelty of animal farming, should lead to a state of dissonance that could be sufficiently reduced by excluding animals from the humanness.…”