Sentience and the Primordial ‘We’: Contributions to Animal Ethics from Phenomenology and Buddhist Philosophy

IF 2.2 2区 哲学 Q3 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Environmental Values Pub Date : 2023-04-01 DOI:10.3197/096327122x16452897197801
Anya Daly
{"title":"Sentience and the Primordial ‘We’: Contributions to Animal Ethics from Phenomenology and Buddhist Philosophy","authors":"Anya Daly","doi":"10.3197/096327122x16452897197801","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper explores the ontological bases for ethical behaviour between human animals and non-human animals drawing on phenomenology and Buddhist philosophy. Alongside Singer and utilitarianism, I argue that ethical behaviour regarding animals is most effectively justified and motivated by considerations of sentience. Nonetheless, utilitarianism misses crucial aspects of sentience. Buddhist ethics is from the beginning focused on all sentient beings, not solely humans. This inclusivity, and refined interrogations of suffering, means it can furnish more nuanced understandings of sentience. For phenomenology, sentience includes the capacities for self-awareness and, I will argue, a plural self-awareness; the ‘I’ belongs to a ‘we’, and the ‘we’ is constitutive of the ‘I’. This ‘primordial we’ provides the basis for rethinking the moral relations between human animals and non-human animals. I contend finally we thus have an ontological basis in ‘interanimality’ to explain why we most often do and should care about all sentient beings.","PeriodicalId":47200,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Values","volume":"1 1","pages":"215 - 236"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Values","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3197/096327122x16452897197801","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This paper explores the ontological bases for ethical behaviour between human animals and non-human animals drawing on phenomenology and Buddhist philosophy. Alongside Singer and utilitarianism, I argue that ethical behaviour regarding animals is most effectively justified and motivated by considerations of sentience. Nonetheless, utilitarianism misses crucial aspects of sentience. Buddhist ethics is from the beginning focused on all sentient beings, not solely humans. This inclusivity, and refined interrogations of suffering, means it can furnish more nuanced understandings of sentience. For phenomenology, sentience includes the capacities for self-awareness and, I will argue, a plural self-awareness; the ‘I’ belongs to a ‘we’, and the ‘we’ is constitutive of the ‘I’. This ‘primordial we’ provides the basis for rethinking the moral relations between human animals and non-human animals. I contend finally we thus have an ontological basis in ‘interanimality’ to explain why we most often do and should care about all sentient beings.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
知觉和原始的“我们”:现象学和佛教哲学对动物伦理学的贡献
本文从现象学和佛教哲学的角度探讨了人类动物与非人类动物之间伦理行为的本体论基础。与辛格和功利主义一样,我认为关于动物的道德行为是最有效的理由和动机,是出于对感知的考虑。然而,功利主义忽略了感知的关键方面。佛教伦理从一开始就关注众生,而不仅仅是人类。这种包容性,以及对痛苦的精致拷问,意味着它可以提供对感知更细致入微的理解。对于现象学来说,知觉包括自我意识的能力,我认为,是一种多元的自我意识;“我”属于“我们”,“我们”是“我”的组成部分。这种“原始的我们”为重新思考人类动物与非人类动物之间的道德关系提供了基础。最后,我认为我们有一个“动物间性”的本体论基础来解释为什么我们经常关心并且应该关心所有有情众生。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
36.40%
发文量
55
期刊介绍: Environmental Values is an international peer-reviewed journal that brings together contributions from philosophy, economics, politics, sociology, geography, anthropology, ecology and other disciplines, which relate to the present and future environment of human beings and other species. In doing so we aim to clarify the relationship between practical policy issues and more fundamental underlying principles or assumptions.
期刊最新文献
Every tree fixed with a purpose: Contesting value in Olmsted's parks On degrowth strategy: The Simpler Way perspective A social and ethical game-changer? An empirical ethics study of CRISPR in the salmon farming industry Who owns NATURE? Conceptual appropriation in discourses on climate and biotechnologies Book Review: Strange Natures. Conservation in the Era of Synthetic Biology by Kent H. Redford and William M. Adams
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1