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

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

3. 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 )
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?

4. 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

5. 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?

6. 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

7. 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?

8. 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.

9. 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

10. 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.

11. 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

12. Thank you!