Search Results for: sentient animals

Kant, Korsgaard and the Moral Status of Animals

Prof. dr hab. Tomasz Pietrzykowski

University of Silesia

English abstract: The paper discusses the views of Christine Korsgaard – one of leading modern Kantian moral philosophers – on the proper status of sentient animals. Famously, Kantian moral theory is considered as much less favorable to the idea of animal rights than the competing utilitarian tradition. Ch. Korsgaard however reexamines the foundations of Kantian ethics and comes to the conclusion that their best reading implies (contrary to Kant’s own beliefs) that not only humans but also sentient animals deserve to be treated as ends in themselves. Her interpretation and development of Kantian ethics aims to reconcile it with modern philosophical naturalism and contemporary scientific knowledge on the nature of living creatures. Ch. Korsgaard proposes convincing comprehensive picture of naturalistic axiology and its ethical implications. Nonetheless, I raise two important objections that her views seem to give rise to – concerning the nature of human and non-human subjective selves as well as relation between moral and legal rights. The paper is based mainly on the opinions presented by Ch. Korsgaard during the 3-days seminar held in Oxford (2014) devoted to discussion of her views on the status and rights of animals from the perspective of Kantian ethics as well as on her numerous writings related to the subject.

Keywords: Christine Korsgaard, Immanual Kant, Kantianism, animal rights

Language: Polish

Published: Number 2(11)/2015, p. 106-119.

Download file: Download

Number of downloads: 595

From Legal Protection Towards Animal Rights: Between Moral and Legal Consciousness. Evolution of Approach on the Example of Administrative Case Law

Dr hab. Anna Kalisz, mgr Dorota Pawlicka

Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Supreme Administrative Court

English abstract: The aim of the article is to analyse the possibility and necessity of empowering animals as ‘non-personal’ legal subjects under Polish law, indicating the relevant case law (of ordinary and, mainly, administrative courts). The research assumption is the statement that, although administrative case law contains elements of a fairly progressive approach that results in an interpretation of the applicable provisions on the protection and (rudimentarily regulated) animal rights, the existing provisions are far from sufficient and leave quite a lot of room for a very flexible interpretation. That may lead not solely to an animal-friendly interpretation, but also to abuses against them. Therefore, postulated amendments concerning constitutional protection of animal rights deserve attention, as they would be important for the systemic interpretation of law. The research subject is both philosophical and legal literature, as well as case law. The main method is the logico-linguistic analysis (with some elements of historical and comparative approach) of texts on philosophy, including legal philosophy and ethics, as well as the analysis of case law. The research findings have a mixed, descriptive-and-normative character, while the above combination of ethics, legal theory, and legal practice both manifests the evolution of the approach to the titular matter and makes an original contribution to jurisprudence as a scientific discipline.

Keywords: social consciousness, sentient animals, legal protection of animals, animal rights, constitutional protection, administrative case law

Language: Polish

Published: Number 2(31)/2022, pp. 38-53.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.36280/AFPiFS.2022.2.38

Download: Download
Number of downloads: 453

This text is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial – No Derivative Works 4.0 International License.

Against Dignity: An Argument for a Non-Metaphysical Foundation of Animal Law

Prof. dr hab. Tomasz Pietrzykowski

University of Silesia in Katowice

English abstract: Animal protection as an emerging field of legislation needs to be constitutionalized as well as comprehensively expounded by legal scholars. As it is a growing body of regulation and accompanying legal theories, it needs to develop a solid conceptual and axiological framework, in particular a set of basic values and principles on which detailed rules are to be founded. Lacking these, the domain of animal law is still in the pre-paradigm stage and remains an assemblage of dispersed ideas, concepts and regulatory measures. It yet has to develop into a coherent whole that may grow to be a mature regulatory and doctrinal domain of the law. In order to reach this stage, it should be founded on clear theoretical and constitutional grounds. Lacking those, its further development, and effective operation may be seriously impeded. There seem to be two basic approaches that may serve as the possible foundations for a viable model of animal protection law. The first may be referred to as the “dignity” approach and the other, as the “sentientist” approach. According to the first of those two approaches, animal protection law should rely on the concept of animal dignity as its philosophical foundation. The second approach rejects the idea that the concept of animal dignity as the basis for the relevant legislation as philosophically dubious and entailing objectionable normative consequences for the scope and content of legal protections of animals. Thus, it aims rather at legal norms and policies being based directly on scientifically informed theories of sentience, evolutionarily developed nervous structures underlying cognitive and emotional capabilities or species-typical biological and psychological needs that condition the subjective well-being of a given creature. The aim of this paper is to analyse and discuss both these approaches and to argue that the former is philosophically, conceptually and practically flawed. The second approach, even despite some serious disadvantages, is therefore deemed to be preferable and more promising.

Keywords: animals, dignity, rights, law, constitution, ethics

Language: English

Published: Number 2(27)/2021, pp. 69-82.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.36280/AFPiFS.2021.2.69

Download: Download
Number of downloads: 552

This text is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial – No Derivative Works 4.0 International License.