Implicancias morales de un sesgo taxonómico en el estudio de especies no humanas
Abstract
This article analyzes the form and origin of the taxonomic bias affecting invertebrate animals and establishes that this discrimination is based on the view of an epistemological-based ethics. In opossition to this, the reading of Cheney and Weston (1999) and Birch (1993) is proposed, both of which appeal to a priority of ethics over epistemology. After an unfolding of different approaches to this relationship, it is argued that an epistemology based on ethics considerations would be a way out of speciesism on sciencie.
Keywords:
Animal Ethics, Taxonomic bias, invertebrates, epistemology, universal considerationReferences
Alarcón, R. G., & Montagner, M. Â. (2017). Epistemología de la bioética: extensión a partir de la perspectiva latinoamericana. Revista latinoamericana de Bioética, 17(2), 107-122.
Andrews, Paul L.R.; Darmaillacq, Anne-Sophie; Dennison, Ngaire; Gleadall, Ian G.; Hawkins, Penny; Messenger, John B.; Osorio, Daniel; Smith, Valerie Jane; Smith, Jane A. (2013). The identification and management of pain, suffering and distress in cephalopods, including anaesthesia, analgesia and humane killing. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 447, 46-64.
Bentham, J. (1781). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought.
Birch, T. H. (1993). Moral considerability and universal consideration. Environmental Ethics, 15(4), 313-332.
Cheney, J., & Weston, A. (1999). Environmental ethics as environmental etiquette: Toward an ethics-based epistemology. Environmental Ethics, 21(2), 115-134.
Clark, J. A., & May, R. M. (2002). Taxonomic bias in conservation research. Science, 297(5579), 191-193.
Crespi Abril, A. C., & Rubilar Panasiuk, C. T. (2018). Ética e invertebrados: análisis de los casos de los cefalópodos y equinodermos. Revista latinoamericana de estudios críticos animales, 1, 211-233.
De Lora, P. (2003). Justicia para los animales. La ética va más allá de la humanidad. Alianza Editorial.
Donaldson, S., & Kymlicka, W. (2018). Zoopolis, una revolución animalista. Errata Naturae.
Edelman, D. B., & Seth, A. K. (2009). Animal consciousness: a synthetic approach. Trends in neurosciences, 32(9), 476-484.
European Food Safety Authority. (2005, 22 diciembre). Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) on a request from the Commission related to the aspects of the biology and welfare of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes. https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/292
Ferrer, J. J. (2009). La bioética como quehacer filosófico. Acta bioethica, 15(1), 35-41.
Francione, G. L. (1999). El error de Bentham (y el de Singer). Teorema: Revista internacional de filosofía. 18(3), 39-60.
Francione, G. (2000). Introduction to animal rights: Your child or the dog? Temple University Press.
Francione, G. (2010). Rain without thunder: The ideology of the animal rights movement. Temple University Press.
Horta, Ó. (2007). Un desafío para la bioética. La cuestión del especismo. Univ. Santiago de Compostela.
Howard, S. R., & Symonds, M. R. (2020). Ethical considerations for invertebrates. Animal Sentience, 5(29), 21-24.
Mather, J. A., & Anderson, R. C. (2007). Ethics and invertebrates: a cephalopod perspective. Diseases of aquatic organisms, 75(2), 119-129.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2001). Animal Rights: The Need for a Theoretical Basis. Harvard Law. Review, 114(5), 1506-1549.
Ojeda, J., Rozzi, R., Rosenfeld, S., Contadora, T., Massardo, F., Malebrán, J., ... & Mansilla, A. (2018). Interacciones bioculturales del pueblo yagán con las macroalgas y moluscos: una aproximación desde la filosofía ambiental de campo. Magallania (Punta Arenas), 46(1), 155-181.
Pezzeta, S. (2018). Derechos fundamentales para los demás animales. Espejismo, igualdad y justicia interespecies. Lecciones y Ensayos, 100, 69-104.
Regan, T. (1998). Derechos animales, injusticias humanas. Teresa Kwiatkowska y Jorge Issa (comps.). Los caminos de la ética ambiental, 245-262.
Regan, T. (2016). En defensa de los derechos de los animales. Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Rozzi, R. (2019). ¡Chovinismo Taxonómico, No Más!: Antídotos de Hume, Darwin y la Ética Biocultural. Environmental Ethics, 41(Supplement I), 73-112.
Sherwin, C. M. (2001). Can invertebrates suffer? Or, how robust is argument-by-analogy?. Animal Welfare, 10(1), 103-118.
Singer, P. (1993). Practical Ethics. Cambridge Univ.
Singer, P. (1999). Liberación Animal. Trotta.
Shine, R. y Bonnet, X. (2000). Snakes: a new ‘model organism’in ecological research?. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 15(6), 221-222.
Singer, P. (1999). Ética más allá de los límites de la especie. Teorema: Revista Internacional de Filosofía, 18(3), 5-16.
Smith, J. A. (1991). A question of pain in invertebrates. ILAR journal, 33(1-2), 25-31.
Smith, J., Boyd, Kenneth M, & Institute of Medical Ethics. (1991). Lives in the balance: The ethics of using animals in biomedical research: The report of a working party of the Institute of Medical Ethics. Oxford University Press.
