Beyond “Compassion and Humanity” Justice for Nonhuman Animals Martha C. Nussbaum

Layout of presentation Key arguments presented by Nussbaum Evaluation of Arguments Discussion Questions

Key Arguments Contractarianism : Lack of examples/guide to aid our thinking Utilitarianism : 1. Does not take into account of the well-being of individuals 2. Adaptive preferences 3. Deprivation of valuable life activity (pg 304-305) Capabilities Approach: dignity and entitlement to flourish for nonhuman animals Contractarianism: asymmetry of power to knockdown the argument of bargaining -> animals fail to be taken in account Utilitarianism: 1. flaw of sum ranking 2. desires linked to psychology?

Evaluation of arguments Clear distinction between each basic entitlements (pg 304) Capability to kill small animals (pg 311) Untradeable Similar to basic human right What if they are prey to others? Is the life of that small animal worth killing to allow the capability to exercise one’s predatory nature? Such a conflict might exist but she fails to address how does the capabilities approach tackle such a conflict especially since each basic entitlement as previously mention is untradeable

Evaluation of arguments Basic wonder at nonhuman animals in their complex life form (pg 306) “If we feel wonder looking at a complex organism… suggests that it is good for that being to flourish as the kind of thing it is” Letting the nonhumans animal flourish simply to satisfy our wonder. Similar to using nonhuman animals to further our well-being A broader perspective from Kantian ethics which addresses only humanity and rationality Quote from 2nd completed para Seems to go against her argument against contractarianism -> aren’t we then allowing the nonhuman animals to flourish for our benefit?

Evaluation of arguments Capabilities approach keeps in focus that each individual nonhuman animal has “a different form of life and different ends” Basis for this difference -> more complex life forms -> more complex capabilities Humans too have different capabilities (retarded vs normal) but they all have a basic human right Is there a need to differentiate which animals qualify for entitlement based on justice? 2nd subpoint: why can’t the same that is being applied to humans be applied to nonhuman animals? One plausible CA: humans are of the same species, thus no matter what difference in capability we have, we owe each other that basic form of respect. Animals come from a range of species with different capabilities

Evaluation of arguments Danger of romanticizing nature (pg 310) Suggests the idea of a man made habitat suited to the flourishing of a specific nonhuman animal. E.g. tiger (pg 313) Some parts of nature exist only if humans intervened Rise of conflicting conditions of the habitat required by different species Different species require different habitats Alludes that we can ensure the flourishing of other nonhuman animals simply by not interfering. Romanticizing nature in the sense that everything in nature is good and that we humans are the “bad” ones pollutiong and destroying nature So she insists that we have to intervene in order to allow nonhuman animals to flourish 2nd point: difficulty in creating a habitat that suits all. Overall, may seem a bit too idealistic?

Evaluation of arguments Animal experimentation (pg 318) Suggests the use of less-complex sentient animals & develop experimental methods independent of animal experimentation. Done on the basis that animals such as mice reflects the nature of the human body Using less complex animals, may not be a clear reflection -> causing more harm to humans instead Reason why we use animals is cause they are the closest reflection to what will happen to human body. How will machines be able to produce the same reactions/conditions? Animal experimentation important since human testing is not allowed.

Questions for Discussion The idea of paternalism being highly sensitive to different forms of flourishing. Do you think this helps paternalism to meet the idea of species autonomy? Should the same principle for humans be applied to nonhumans? What are the limits to human intervention? Do you agree we should go to such lengths to protect the entitlement of the nonhuman animals to flourish? E.g euthanasia for elderly animals? Questions for Discussion

Questions for Discussion Will having political commitments protecting an individual of a species really protect the species? Is it justified to apply the same human capabilities in the list to that of nonhuman animals? Questions for Discussion 1. Do you agree with this approach? What doubts would you have? For me, its definitely the practicality. Impact of an individual vs impact involving an entire species.

Stone vs Nussbaum Similarities Differences Justice for nonhuman (laws for protecting them) Stone Nussbaum Both suggest at the idea of guardianship to grant entitlement directly to animals All organisms (plant, animals and the environment) Solely nonhuman animals Laws for their rights Capability approach to generate laws for the protection to their entitlement to flourish Food for thought: Can Nussbaum capabilities approach be used to supplement Stone’s arguments for the legalisation of animals rights. One way to argue: yes, stone only briefly mentions that animals have a worth but does not specify what -> Nussbaum provides more reasons why animals can be considered

Thank you!