Persons, Animals, and Psychological Unity

Philosophical Studies 180 (4):1197-1209 (2023)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In this paper I consider whether psychological unity can moderate moral status. I first explicate a hybrid view on which non-person animals have a utilitarian moral status and persons have a deontological moral status. I then discuss Jeff McMahan's (2002) concept of psychological unity, and I motivate the view that differences in psychological unity might affect the strength of our reasons against harming different individuals. Ultimately, however, I reject the claim that differences in moral status can be explained by differences in psychological unity.

Similar books and articles

“Our fellow creatures”.Jeff McMahan - 2005 - The Journal of Ethics 9 (3-4):353 - 380.
Critical Notice. [REVIEW]Tim Mulgan - 2004 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 34 (3):443-459.
Critical Notice. [REVIEW]Tim Mulgan - 2004 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 34 (3):443-459.
At the margins of moral personhood.Eva Kittay - 2005 - Ethics 116 (1):100-131.
At the Margins of Moral Personhood.Eva Feder Kittay - 2005 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 5 (2):137-156.
Are Animals Persons? Why Ask?Jonas-Sébastien Beaudry - 2019 - Journal of Animal Ethics 9 (1):6-26.
On ‘Modal Personism’.Jeff McMahan - 2015 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 33 (1):26-30.

Analytics

Added to PP
2022-12-16

Downloads
144 (#130,777)

6 months
33 (#103,772)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Molly Gardner
University of Florida

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Reasons and Persons.Derek Parfit - 1984 - Oxford, GB: Oxford University Press.
How to Count Animals, More or Less.Shelly Kagan - 2019 - Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Do animals have rights?Carl Cohen - 1997 - Ethics and Behavior 7 (2):91 – 102.

Add more references