What question did this study set out to answer?

This paper examines whether norms for regulating human-animal relations can exist without prior moral considerations about animals.

March 13, 2026Open Access

Animal Politics Without Moral Foundations?

Key Points

This paper examines whether norms for regulating human-animal relations can exist without prior moral considerations about animals.
Analyzed three approaches to animal politics without moral foundations: Garner's all-affected principle, Niesen's freestanding political conception, and Zuolo's view on epistemological challenges.
Critiqued each approach's validity in establishing norms of animal politics without moral grounding.
Proposed a two-stage approach requiring the determination of animals' moral status before developing normative political frameworks.
None of the three discussed approaches adequately establish a legitimate framework for animal politics without moral foundations.
The necessity of clarifying animals' moral status is highlighted as crucial for forming effective political norms.
The critique suggests that ethical considerations are indispensable for developing meaningful animal politics.

Abstract

Can we arrive at convincing norms for the political regulation of human–animal relations without first clarifying the moral status of animals? Are such norms inherent in the political context itself, so that we can uncover them without having to descend into the moral–philosophical depths of animal ethics? Three such approaches of animal politics without moral foundations are discussed. Robert Garner presents the all-affected principle as an alternative to an appeal to contentious non-political moral arguments. Peter Niesen argues in favor of a “freestanding” political conception by following the route of practice-dependent theorists who try to reconstruct ideas or norms as inherent in political institutions. Federico Zuolo sees the deep differences in views about the moral status of animals as an epistemological problem that excludes a legitimate animal politics that is directly based on morality. I try to show that each of these approaches fails. This negative result suggets that we need a two-stage approach according to which the moral status of animals must first be determined in order to arrive at sufficiently contentful and also critical norms of animal politics in a second step.

AIに質問

Bookmark

View Full Paper