Nonhuman Animals Are Morally Responsible

Abstract

Animals are often presumed to lack moral agency insofar as they lack the capacities for reflection or the ability to understand their motivating reasons for acting. In this paper, I argue that animals are in some cases morally responsible. First, I outline conditions of moral action, drawing from a quality of will account of moral responsibility. Second, I review recent empirical research on the capacities needed for moral action in humans and show that animals also have such capacities. I conclude that though it may be difficult to engage in the practice of holding animals morally responsible, given the communication barrier and lack of mutual understanding, some animals nevertheless act in ways for which they are morally responsible.

Perceptions of Animal Welfare on Livestock: Evidence from College Agronomy Students in Costa Rica

“…Analyzing the perceptions of animal welfare based on sociodemographic variables could be explained through the human-animal bond. An interdisciplinary approach to addressing this bond could generate new knowledge related to the bioethics of animal welfare, where ethical issues about our relationship with animals [6,10] interact with the knowledge of animal biology [78], the latter being something that agronomy students learn in the early years of their program. The bioethical principle of autonomy recognizes the telos, i.e., the fundamental biological and psychological essence of any animal based on Aristotle's principles [9].…”

“…This surge has directly impacted legislation, making it increasingly protective of animal welfare [5]. Human ethics are crucial as they can justify obligations towards animals [6][7][8] and are rooted in Ethics or Moral Philosophy [9] by addressing imperatives that compel humans to act in specific ways [10]. Yet, understanding animal biology is necessary when delineating these obligations [11,12].…”

“…The responsibility to ensure animal welfare is rooted in the established fact that animals experience physical pain and suffering [16,45]. Therefore, causing unjustified suffering, such as in entertainment involving cruelty, mistreatment, or unnatural conditions contrary to their physiological and behavioral needs, is not ethical and morally acceptable [6].…”

Anthropocentrism, Natural Harmony, Sentience and Animal Rights: Are We Allowed to Use Animals for Our Own Purposes?

“…This means that, even though animals are intentional agents in that they achieve, in the most evolved forms of mental states, their own precise purposes, if an animal causes harm to a human, the responsibility lies with the owner, in the case of domestic animals, as they are obliged to take care of them, and normally for wild animals it lies with the state, (i.e., the community to which they belong). However, this position is quite recent, so much so that animal courts existed from antiquity to the Middle Ages [ 40 ] and some contemporary philosophers hold animals morally responsible for the harm caused to humans [ 41 ].…”

Perceptions of Animal Welfare on Livestock: Evidence from College Agronomy Students in Costa Rica

“…This surge has directly impacted legislation, making it increasingly protective of animal welfare [5]. Human ethics are crucial as they can justify obligations towards animals [6][7][8] and are rooted in Ethics or Moral Philosophy [9] by addressing imperatives that compel humans to act in specific ways ( [10]. Yet, understanding animal biology is necessary when delineating these obligations [11,12].…”