Feministische und fürsorge­ethische Ansätze

Bossert, Leonie

doi:10.1007/978-3-476-05402-9_20

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Hursthouse's appeal to virtues such as compassion and respectful love could be perceived as an example of the stereotypically “feminine” qualities that the feminist tradition in animal ethics emphasizes (cf. Bossert, 2018, p. 122). Feminist animal ethicists such as Carol Adams (2010), Lori Gruen (Adams & Gruen, 2014), Josephine Donovan (2006), and Lisa Kemmerer (2016) point out that the focus on rationality when it comes to arguments in animal ethics is indicative of the patriarchal powers at play, even within this academic field (Bossert, 2018, p. 117).…”

Section: Animal Ethics: Moral Perspectives On Animal Welfarementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bossert, 2018, p. 122). Feminist animal ethicists such as Carol Adams (2010), Lori Gruen (Adams & Gruen, 2014), Josephine Donovan (2006), and Lisa Kemmerer (2016) point out that the focus on rationality when it comes to arguments in animal ethics is indicative of the patriarchal powers at play, even within this academic field (Bossert, 2018, p. 117). They advocate rectifying this imbalance by emphasizing the moral importance of emotions, relationships, and individual contexts in interactions between humans and animals.…”

Section: Animal Ethics: Moral Perspectives On Animal Welfarementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Avoiding unnecessary suffering: Towards a moral minimum standard for humans' responsibility for animal welfare

Köllen

Schneeberger

2023

Business Ethics Env & Resp

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Animals are an important part of our social, economic and corporate world. Their wellbeing is significantly affected by the ways in which humans treat them. However, animals have long remained (and, indeed, continue to remain) effectively invisible in the business ethics and corporate responsibility discourse. This article argues in favor of the moral necessity of according animal welfare a higher priority in business. In line with most streams in both recent and traditional animal ethics, this article derives the avoidance of unnecessary animal suffering as the moral minimum standard for responsible management in the livestock industry. Based on a broad range of different interpretations of what animal suffering may be necessary, the article discusses three distinct ways in which humans working in the animal industry could meet their moral responsibility to avoid unnecessary suffering, and, with this, increase animal welfare: by ameliorating circumstances for animals, by aiming at a two‐pronged transformation, or by transforming into a “zero‐suffering” business. Considering animal welfare as a legitimate ethical value in and of itself is a first step towards overcoming the anthropocentric bias in today's sustainability and corporate responsibility debate.

show abstract