Connecting moral status to proper legal status
MetadataShow full item record
This chapter entertains three proposals as to the connection between an animal’s moral status and what legal status it ought to have. The first proposal is this strong claim: that an act wrongs an animal is a justification for criminalizing it. The second proposal is this moderate claim: that an act constitutes an injustice to an animal is a justification for criminalizing it. Both of these proposals can be vindicated if an argument for legal moralism that the author constructs, drawing on the work of Michael Moore, is sound. Meanwhile, Martha Nussbaum, Alasdair Cochrane, and Robert Garner have each argued for the second proposal. The chapter demonstrates that all four of these arguments are unsound. The third proposal is this claim: it is obligatory for legislators to eliminate any aspect of the law that facilitates the wronging of animals. This proposal, the author argues, is sound. Comparatively weak though this proposal is, the chapter extracts from it radical implications for animal ownership and state funding of medical research on animal subjects.
Sachs , B 2021 , Connecting moral status to proper legal status . in S Clarke , H Zohny & J Savulescu (eds) , Rethinking moral status . Oxford University Press , Oxford , pp. 215-230 . https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192894076.003.0013
Rethinking moral status
Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). This work has been made available online in accordance with publisher policies or with permission. Permission for further reuse of this content should be sought from the publisher or the rights holder. This is the author created accepted manuscript following peer review and may differ slightly from the final published version. The final published version of this work is available at https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192894076.003.0013
Items in the St Andrews Research Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.