Wild Animal Ethics: A Freedom-Based Approach

References

• Berlin, I. (1969/1990). Four essays on liberty. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Birch, J., Burn, C., Schnell, A., Browning, H., & Crump, A. (2021). Review of the evidence of sentience in cephalopod molluscs and decapod crustaceans. LSE Consulting.
   Google Scholar
• Bramble, B. (2021). Painlessly killing predators. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 38(2), 217–225. https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12461
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bratman, M. (1997). Responsibility and planning. The Journal of Ethics, 1(1), 27–43. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009703818699
   Google Scholar
• Burgis, J. L. (2018). Making covenants with brute beasts: Making room for non-human animals in a contractualist framework [ Doctoral dissertation]. University of Miami.
   Google Scholar
• Carter, I. (1999). A measure of freedom. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cochrane, A. (2009). Do animals have an interest in liberty? Political Studies, 57(3), 660–679. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2008.00742.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cochrane, A. (2012). Animal rights without liberation. Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cochrane, A. (2013). Cosmozoopolis: The case against group-differentiated animal rights. Law, Ethics and Philosophy, (1), 127–141.
   Google Scholar
• Cochrane, A. (2018). Sentientist politics. A theory of global inter-species justice. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cowen, T. (2003). Policing nature. Environmental Ethics, 25(2), 169–182. https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics200325231
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donaldson, S., & Kymlicka, W. (2011). Zoopolis. A political theory of animal rights. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dretske, F. (2006). Minimal rationality. In S. Hurley & M. Nudds (Eds.), Rational animals? (pp. 107–116). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dworkin, G. (1970). Acting freely. Noûs, 4(4), 367–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2214680
   Google Scholar
• Dworkin, R. (2000). Sovereign virtue: The theory and practice of equality. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Elmore, B. (2021). A critique of scanlon on the scope of morality. Between the Species, 24(1), 145–165.
   Google Scholar
• Faria, C. (2014). Equality, priority, and nonhuman animals. Dilemata, (6), 225–236.
   Google Scholar
• Faria, C. (2016). Animal ethics goes wild: The problem of wild animal suffering and intervention in nature [ PhD dissertation]. Pompeu Fabra University.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, J. M. (1994). The metaphysics of free will: An essay on control. Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, J. M., & Ravizza, M. (1998). Responsibility and control: A theory of moral responsibility. University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Frankfurt, H. G. (1971). Freedom of the will and the concept of a person. The Journal of Philosophy, 68(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.2307/2024717
   Google Scholar
• Garner, R. (2013). A theory of justice for animals: Animal rights in a nonideal world. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, J. J. (1979). The theory of affordances. In J. J. Gibson (Ed.), The ecological approach to visual perception (pp. 127–137). Houghton Mifflin.
   Google Scholar
• Giroux, V. (2016). Do animals have an interest in liberty? Journal of Animal Ethics, 6(1), 20–43. https://doi.org/10.5406/janimalethics.6.1.0020
   Google Scholar
• Glock, H.-J. (2009). Can animals act for reasons? Inquiry, 52(3), 232–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/00201740902917127
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodin, R. E. (1995). Utilitarianism as a public philosophy. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Groff, Z., & Ng, Y.-K. (2019). Does suffering dominate enjoyment in the animal kingdom? An update to welfare biology. Biology & Philosophy, 34(4), 40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-019-9692-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hare, R. M. (1981). Moral thinking: Its levels, method and point. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hobbes, T. (1651/2008). Leviathan. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Holtug, N. (2007). Equality for animals. In J. Ryberg, T. S. Petersen, & C. Wolf (Eds.), New waves in applied ethics (pp. 1–24). Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Hooker, B. (2000). Ideal code, real world. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Horta, O. (2010). Debunking the idyllic view of natural processes: Population dynamics and suffering in the wild. Télos, (17), 73–88.
   Google Scholar
• Horta, O. (2013). Zoopolis, interventions and the state of nature. Law, Ethics and Philosophy, (1), 113–125.
   Google Scholar
• Horta, O. (2016). Egalitarianism and animals. Between the Species, 19(1), 108–144.
   Google Scholar
• Horta, O. (2017). Population dynamics meets animal ethics: The case for aiding animals in nature. In G. Garmendia & A. Woodhall (Eds.), Ethical and political approaches to nonhuman animal issues: Towards an undivided future (pp. 365–389). Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Johannsen, K. (2017). Animal rights and the problem of r-strategists. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 20(2), 333–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-016-9774-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johannsen, K. (2020). Wild animal ethics. The moral and political problem of wild animal suffering. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• John, T., & Sebo, J. (2020). Consequentialism and nonhuman animals. In D. W. Portmore (Ed.), Oxford handbook of consequentialism (pp. 564–591). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Korsgaard, C. M. (2018). Fellow creatures. Our Obligations to the other Animals. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kramer, M. H. (2003). The quality of freedom. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lovett, F. (2010). A general theory of domination and justice. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Low, P. (2012). The Cambridge declaration on consciousness. Retrieved February 7, 2022, from http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf
   Google Scholar
• MacCallum, G. C. (1967). Negative and positive freedom. The Philosophical Review, 76(3), 312. https://doi.org/10.2307/2183622
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McMahan, J. (2010). The meat eaters. New York Times: The Opinionator, 2021, June 22.
   Google Scholar
• McMahan, J. (2015). The moral problem of predation. In A. Chignell, T. Cuneo, & M. Halteman (Eds.), Philosophy comes to dinner: Arguments on the ethics of eating (pp. 268–294). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Meijer, E. (2019). When animals speak. Toward and interspecies democracy. New York University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mill, J. S. (1859/2001). On liberty. Kitchener.
   Google Scholar
• Moen, O. M. (2016). The ethics of wild animal suffering. Etikk i Praksis, 10(1), 91–104. https://doi.org/10.5324/eip.v10i1.1972
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ng, Y.-K. (1995). Towards welfare biology: Evolutionary economics of animal consciousness and suffering. Biology & Philosophy, 10(3), 255–285. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00852469
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nozick, R. (1971). Anarchy, state, and utopia. Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, M. (2006). Frontiers of justice: Disability, nationality, species membership. Belknap Press.
   Google Scholar
• Otsuka, M. (2003). Libertarianism without inequality. Clarendon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Paez, E. (2019). On the importance of species for rule-consequentialism: A reply to Galvão. Utilitas, 31(2), 179–190. Impact factor (SJR): 0.82 Q1. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0953820818000183
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paez, E. (2020). A Kantian ethics of paradise engineering. Analysis, 80(2), 283–293. Impact factor (SJR): 0.71 Q1. https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/anz077
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paez, E. (2022). A republic for all sentients: Social freedom without free will. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 103(3), 620–644. Impact factor (SJR): 1.071 Q1. https://doi.org/10.1111/papq.12351
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palmer, C. A. (2010). Animal ethics in context. Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pearce, D. (1995/2015). The hedonistic imperative. Retrieved February 7, 2022, from https://www.hedweb.com
   Google Scholar
• Pearce, D. (2009). Reprogramming predators. Retrieved February 7, 2022, from https://www.hedweb.com/abolitionist-project/reprogramming-predators.html
   Google Scholar
• Pearce, D. (2015). A welfare state for elephants? A case study of compassionate stewardship. Relations: Beyond Anthropocentrism, 3(3.2), 153–164. https://doi.org/10.7358/rela-2015-002-pear
   Google Scholar
• Pettit, P. (1993). The common mind. An essay on psychology, society and politics. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pettit, P. (1997). Republicanism. A theory of freedom and government. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pettit, P. (2001). A theory of freedom. From the psychology to the politics of agency. Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pettit, P. (2015). Freedom: Psychological, ethical, and political. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 18(4), 375–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2015.1033861
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rawls, J. (1993). Political liberalism. Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Raz, J. (1986). The morality of freedom. Clarendon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rowlands, M. (2012). Can animals be moral? Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rowlands, M. (2019). Can animals be persons? Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Scanlon, T. M. (1998). What we owe to each other. Belknap Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sebo, J. (2017). Agency and moral status. Journal of Moral Philosophy, 14(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1163/17455243-46810046
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singer, P. (1979/2011). Practical ethics (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Talbert, M. (2006). Contractualism and our duties to nonhuman animals. Environmental Ethics, 28(2), 201–215. https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics200628232
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, C. (1979). What’s wrong with negative liberty? In A. Ryan (Ed.), The idea of freedom: Essays in honour of Isaiah Berlin (pp. 175–193). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tomasik, B. (2009). How many wild animals are there? Retrieved February 7, 2022, from http://reducing-suffering.org/how-many-wild-animals-are-there/
   Google Scholar
• Tomasik, B. (2015). The importance of wild-animal suffering. Relations: Beyond Anthropocentrism, 3(2), 133–152. https://doi.org/10.7358/rela-2015-002-toma
   Google Scholar
• Varner, G. E. (2012). Personhood, ethics, and animal cognition. Situating animals in hare’s two-level utilitarianism. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Watson, G. (1975). Free agency. The Journal of Philosophy, 72(8), 205–270. https://doi.org/10.2307/2024703
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilcox, M. G. (2019). Animals and the agency account of moral status. Philosophical Studies, 177(7), 1879–1899. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-019-01289-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilcox, M. G. (2020). The intrinsic value of liberty for non-human animals. The Journal of Value Inquiry, 55(4), 685–703. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10790-020-09762-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolf, S. (1990). Freedom within reason. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Woodard, C. (2019). Taking utilitarianism seriously. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar