
Unitarianism or Hierarchical Approach for Moral Status? A Very Subtle Difference
Author(s) -
Francesco Allegri
Publication year - 2022
Publication title -
relations
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.11
H-Index - 2
eISSN - 2280-9643
pISSN - 2283-3196
DOI - 10.7358/rela-2021-0102-alle
Subject(s) - compromise , nothing , opposition (politics) , relevance (law) , epistemology , psychology , environmental ethics , social psychology , philosophy , sociology , social science , political science , law , politics
The article is inspired by Shelly Kagan’s recent book “How to Count Animals”, which focuses on the alternative between a unitarian and a hierarchical conception of the moral status of beings in the animal ethics debate. The paper finds a way of compromise between the two perspectives in the principle of equal consideration of interests, but above all it lessens the role of such opposition – especially its practical relevance – by emphasizing that, regardless of the fact of conceiving moral status in terms of all or nothing or in gradual terms, what really counts in our attitude towards non-human animals is to assign them an important moral consideration, that protects them not only from suffering, but also from an induced death in advance of natural times, a thesis that is compatible with both unitarianism and a hierarchical approach.