IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jhudca/v18y2017i3p322-336.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cultural Killing and Human–Animal Capability Conflict

Author

Listed:
  • Amy Linch
  • Breena Holland

Abstract

The capabilities approach provides a promising basis for developing a theory of interspecies justice grounded in the inherent dignity of all sentient striving beings. As currently formulated, the approach provides guidance for identifying the entitlements of each being, but not for managing tradeoffs between the capabilities of humans and nonhumans. Through considering cultural practices that put human capabilities in conflict with the capabilities of animals, we propose and defend two criteria for evaluating practices that harm animals for human purposes. The adaptability criterion, derived from Nussbaum’s work on capabilities for humans, distinguishes practices that preserve the ability of people to exert ethical agency in a context of changing values and material circumstances. The regulatory criterion, derived from consideration of the interdependence of human and animal capabilities, distinguishes practices that foster the skills and habits people need to create an ecologically just social order. In applying these criteria to cases of human-animal capability conflict, we demonstrate their potential to resolve such conflicts in a way that redresses the effects of colonization and domination, while appreciating – but not romanticizing – the knowledge and ecological respect of people who once lived in less destructive relationships with other species.

Suggested Citation

  • Amy Linch & Breena Holland, 2017. "Cultural Killing and Human–Animal Capability Conflict," Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(3), pages 322-336, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:jhudca:v:18:y:2017:i:3:p:322-336
    DOI: 10.1080/19452829.2017.1342383
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/19452829.2017.1342383
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/19452829.2017.1342383?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jhudca:v:18:y:2017:i:3:p:322-336. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/CJHD20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.