Animals, politics and justice: Rawlsian liberalism and the plight of non-humans

Abstract It is argued that Rawls illegitimately excludes animals as beneficiaries of the deliberations in the original position. Claims about the superiority of contractarianism from an animal protection perspective are devalued, however, because Rawls' principles of justice are themselves derived from, or at least influenced by, preexisting moral intuitions and values. In addition, excluding animals from Rawls' theory of justice leaves them subject to the liberal principle of moral pluralism. Here, in theory and practice, the treatment of animals becomes a matter of moral preferences, whereby the state is reluctant to intervene to prohibit those who see no wrong in animal cruelty.