Challenging Habermas’ Practical Discourse to Justify the Rights of Animals

Nowak, Ewa; Ciereszko, Kinga; Dłużewicz, Alicja; Napiwodzka, Karolina

dc.contributor.author	Nowak, Ewa
dc.contributor.author	Ciereszko, Kinga
dc.contributor.author	Dłużewicz, Alicja
dc.contributor.author	Napiwodzka, Karolina
dc.contributor.editor	Gensler, Marek
dc.contributor.editor	Gralińska-Toborek, Agnieszka
dc.contributor.editor	Kazimierska-Jerzyk, Wioletta
dc.contributor.editor	Kędziora, Krzysztof
dc.contributor.editor	Miksa, Joanna
dc.date.accessioned	2022-06-28T11:43:35Z
dc.date.available	2022-06-28T11:43:35Z
dc.date.issued	2022
dc.identifier.citation	Nowak E., Ciereszko K., Dłużewicz A., Napiwodzka K., Challenging Habermas’ Practical Discourse to Justify the Rights of Animals, [w:] M. Gensler, A. Gralińska-Toborek, W. Kazimierska-Jerzyk, K. Kędziora, J. Miksa (red.), współpr. M. Mansfeld, Practica et Speculativa. Studies Offered to Professor Andrzej M. Kaniowski, WUŁ, Łódź 2022, https://doi.org/10.18778/8220-570-1.31	pl_PL
dc.identifier.isbn	978-83-8220-570-1
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/11089/42293
dc.description.abstract	The article is about to challenge Habermas’ practical discourse approach and to explore its potentials for the justification of animal rights. Firstly, the classic concepts of agential features are discussed to examine whether animal agents deserve their rights (quasi sui juris in terms of H. Jonas) or they should be unconditionally recognized as continuously present in and endangered by the human and social world (Sections 1, 2, 3). Secondly, the principle of universalization of rights employing practical discourse is revised and extended to create the most favorable communicative-discursive opportunity for advocating for animal rights and catalyzing an agreement upon their validity, to adopt them as a justified “new social norm”, and so to overcome the limitations of practical discourse. Subsequently, Habermas’ view on the rights of animals is discussed (Section 4). The authors try to contribute to the “therapeutic” discourse recommended by Habermas when the matter of practical discourse rises controversies.	pl_PL
dc.language.iso	en	pl_PL
dc.publisher	Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego	pl_PL
dc.relation.ispartof	Practica et Speculativa. Studies Offered to Professor Andrzej M. Kaniowski;
dc.rights	Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Międzynarodowe	*
dc.rights.uri	http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/	*
dc.subject	animal rights	pl_PL
dc.subject	justifying the animal rights	pl_PL
dc.subject	challenging discourse ethics	pl_PL
dc.subject	J. Habermas	pl_PL
dc.subject	practical discourse revised	pl_PL
dc.title	Challenging Habermas’ Practical Discourse to Justify the Rights of Animals	pl_PL
dc.type	Book chapter	pl_PL
dc.page.number	605-626	pl_PL
dc.contributor.authorAffiliation	Uniwersytet Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu	pl_PL
dc.contributor.authorAffiliation	Uniwersytet Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu	pl_PL
dc.contributor.authorAffiliation	Uniwersytet Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu	pl_PL
dc.contributor.authorAffiliation	Uniwersytet Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu	pl_PL
dc.identifier.eisbn	978-83-8220-571-8
dc.references	Adorno, T. W. (1970). Negative Dialektik. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.	pl_PL
dc.references	Alexy, R. (1983). Theorie der juristischen Argumentation. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.	pl_PL
dc.references	Alexy, R. (1989). “The Special Case Thesis”. Ratio Juris. An International Journal of Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law, 12 (4), pp. 374–384.	pl_PL
dc.references	Alexy, R. (1992). “A Discourse-Theoretical Conception of Practical Reason”. Ratio Juris, 5 (3), pp. 231–251.	pl_PL
dc.references	Altner, G. (1979). “Wahrnehmung der Interessen der Natur”, in: Mayer-Abich, K. M. (ed.), Frieden mit der Natur. Freiburg in Breisgau: Herder.	pl_PL
dc.references	Arendt, H. (1973). The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt Brace Janovich.	pl_PL
dc.references	Böhler, D. (2014). Verbindlichkeit aus dem Diskurs. Denken und Handeln nach der Wende zur kommunikativen Ethik – Orientierung in der ökologischen Krise. Freiburg–München: Verlag Karl Alber.	pl_PL
dc.references	Chapouthier, G. (2013). “Thoughts on the Concept of Animal Rights”. Journal International de Bioéthique, 24 (1), pp. 77–85.	pl_PL
dc.references	Chrulew, M., Wadiwel, D. J. (eds.) (2017). Foucault and Animals. Leiden–Boston: Brill.	pl_PL
dc.references	Coals, P., Burnham, D., Loveridge, A. et al. (2019). “The Ethics of Human–Animal Relationships and Public Discourse: A Case Study of Lions Bred for Their Bones”. Animals, 9 (2), DOI: 10.3390/ani9020052	pl_PL
dc.references	Derrida, J. (2008). The Animal That Therefore I Am, translated by D. Willis. New York: Fordham University Press.	pl_PL
dc.references	Fichte, J. G. (1979). Grundlage des Naturrechts. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.	pl_PL
dc.references	Fieldhouse, H. (2004). “The Failure of Kantian Theory of Indirect Duties to Animals”. Animal Liberation Philosophy and Policy Journal, 2, pp. 1–9.	pl_PL
dc.references	Foot, P. (2001). Natural Goodness. Oxford: Clarendon Press.	pl_PL
dc.references	Forst, R. (1999). “The Basic Right to Justification: Toward a Constructivist Conception of Human Rights”, Constellations, 6 (1), pp. 35–60.	pl_PL
dc.references	Garner, R. (2008). “The Politics of Animal Rights”. British Politics, 3 (1), pp. 1105–119.	pl_PL
dc.references	Garner, R. (2016). “Animal Rights and the Deliberative Turn in Democratic Theory”. European Journal of Political Theory, 18 (3), pp. 309–329. DOI: 10.1177/1474885116630937	pl_PL
dc.references	Garner, R. (ed.) (1996). Animal Rights. The Changing Debate. London: Palgrave Macmillan Press Ltd.	pl_PL
dc.references	Gosling, S. D. (2001). “From Mice to Men: What Can We Learn About Personality from Animal Research?”. Psychological Bulletin, 127 (1), pp. 45–86.	pl_PL
dc.references	Grey, J. (2013). “Use Them at Our Pleasure: Spinoza on Animal Ethics”. History of Philosophy Quarterly, 30 (4), pp. 367–388.	pl_PL
dc.references	Grondin, J. (2007). “Derrida on the Question of the Animal”. Cités, 7 (2), pp. 31–39.	pl_PL
dc.references	Habermas, J. (1983). Moralbewusstsein und kommunikatives Handeln. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.	pl_PL
dc.references	Habermas, J. (1990). Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, translated by T. McCarthy. Cambridge: Polity Press.	pl_PL
dc.references	Habermas, J. (1993). Justification and Application. Cambridge: The MIT Press.	pl_PL
dc.references	Habermas, J. (1994). “Remarks on Discourse Ethics”, in: Habermas, J., Justification and Application. Remarks on Discourse Ethics, translated by C. Cronin. Cambridge: The MIT Press.	pl_PL
dc.references	Habermas, J. (1996). Between Facts and Norm, translated by W. Rehg. Cambridge: The MIT Press.	pl_PL
dc.references	Habermas, J. (2010). “Human Dignity and the Realistic Utopia of Human Rights”. Metaphilosophy, 41 (4), pp. 464–480.	pl_PL
dc.references	Hodgeson, L.-M. (2010). „Kant on the Right to Freedom: A Defense”. Ethics, 120, pp. 791–819.	pl_PL
dc.references	Horster, D. (1989). “Die Wirklichkeit der Freiheit”. Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie, 75 (2), pp. 145–160.	pl_PL
dc.references	Jonas, H. (1987). “Warum die Technik ein Gegenstand für die Ethik ist: Fünf Gründe”, in: Lenk, H. and Ropohl, G. (eds.), Technik und Ethik. Stuttgart: Philipp Reclam jun., pp. 81–91.	pl_PL
dc.references	Jonas, H. (2015). „Das Prinzip Verantwortung”, in: Böhler von, D. et al. (eds.), Kritische Gesamtausgabe der Werke von Hans Jonas, Mit Unterstützung des Hans Jonas-Zentrums e.V., vol. I. KGA, Bd. I/2. Freiburg i.Br.–Berlin–Wien: Rombach Verlag.	pl_PL
dc.references	Jonas, H. (2016). „The Basic Forms of Organic Existence: Metabolism”, in: Beckers, J. O. and Preußger, F. (eds.), Organism and Freedom. An Essay in Philosophical Biology, KGA Bd. I/4. Freiburg i.Br.–Berlin–Wien: Rombach Verlag, pp. 1–69.	pl_PL
dc.references	Kaniowski, A. M. (2004). “Filozofia praktyczna Immanuela Kanta – jej siła i słabości”. Diametros, 2, pp. 114–126.	pl_PL
dc.references	Kant, I. (2013). “Conjectural Beginning of Human History”, in: idem, Anthropology, History, and Education, edited by Zöller, G. and Louden, R. B., translated by M. Gregor, et al. Cambridge University Press, pp. 163–175.	pl_PL
dc.references	Kelly, E. (2011). Material Ethics of Value: Max Scheler and Nicolai Hartmann. Dordrecht–Heidelberg–London–New York: Springer.	pl_PL
dc.references	Keulartz, J., van der Weele, C. (2009). “Between Nativism and Cosmopolitanism: Framing and Reframing in Invasion Biology”, in: Drenthen, M. A., Keulartz, J. F. W., Proctor, J. (eds.), New Visions of Nature, Complexity and Authenticity. Dordrecht–Heidelberg–London–New York: Springer, pp. 237–256.	pl_PL
dc.references	Korsgaard, Ch. (1989). „Personal Identity and the Unity of Agency: A Kantian Response to Parfit”. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 18 (2), pp. 101–132.	pl_PL
dc.references	Korsgaard, Ch. (2013). “Personhood, Animals and the Law”. Think, 12 (34), pp. 25–32.	pl_PL
dc.references	Korsgaard, Ch. (2014). “The Normative Constitution of Agency”, in: Vargas, M., Yaffe, G. (eds.), Rational and Social Agency: The Philosophy of Michael Bratman. Oxford Scholarship Online. DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199794515.003.0009	pl_PL
dc.references	Łuków, P. (2004). “Komentarz do tekstu Andrzeja M. Kaniowskiego pt. Filozofia praktyczna Immanuela Kanta – jej siła i słabości”. Diametros, 2, pp. 137–147.	pl_PL
dc.references	McCarthy, T. (1978). The Critical Theory of Jürgen Habermas. MIT Press: Cambridge.	pl_PL
dc.references	Mendieta, E. (2011). “Interspecies Cosmopolitanism: Towards a Discourse Ethics Grounding of Animal Rights”. Logos. A Journal of Modern Society and Culture, 10 (1). Available at: http://www.logosjournal.com/interspecies-cosmopolitanism.php (Accessed: 1 July 2020).	pl_PL
dc.references	Mill, J. S. (1987). “Whewell on Moral Philosophy”, in: Mill, J. S., and Bentham, J., Utilitarianism and Other Essays. New York: Penguin Books.	pl_PL
dc.references	Morar, M. (2008). “The Limits of Discourse Ethics Concerning the Responsibility Toward Nature, Nonhuman Animals and Future Generations”, in: Olaru, B. (ed.), Autonomy, Responsibility and Health Care. Critical Reflections. Bucharest: Zeta Books, pp. 129–158.	pl_PL
dc.references	Mulia, P. et al. (2018). “The Moral Imperatives of Sustainable Development: A Kantian Overview”. Problems of Sustainable Development, 13 (2), pp. 77–82.	pl_PL
dc.references	Neumann, I. D. et al. (2011). “Animal Models of Depression and Anxiety: What Do They Tell Us about Human Condition?”. Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry, 35, pp. 1357–1375. DOI: 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2010.11.028	pl_PL
dc.references	Nowak, E. (2021). “Can We Justify Animal Rights with Hegel’s Thought?”. Paper presented on the XXXIII International Hegel-Congress Hegel and Freedom, Warsaw, 21–25 June 2021. Author’s archive.	pl_PL
dc.references	Nussbaum, M. (2004). “Beyond Compassion and Humanity: Justice for Nonhuman Animals”, in: Sunstein, C. R. and Nussbaum, M. C. (eds.), Animal Rights. Current Debates and New Directions Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 299–320.	pl_PL
dc.references	Nussbaum, M. (2006). Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press.	pl_PL
dc.references	Nussbaum, M. (2018). “Working with and for Animals. Getting the Theoretical Framework Right”. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 19 (1), pp. 218.	pl_PL
dc.references	Nussbaum, M. C. (2001). “Animal Rights: The Need for a Theoretical Basis”. Harvard Law Review, 114, pp. 1506–1549.	pl_PL
dc.references	Patzig, G. (1984). “Ökologische Ethik innerhalb der Grenzen der bloßen Vernunft”, in: Elster, H. J. (ed.), Umweltschutz. Herausforderungen unserer Generation. Mainz: Hase & Koehler.	pl_PL
dc.references	Pietrzykowski, T. (2019). “Animal Rights: Ethics, Society and Constitutions”. Society Register, 3 (3), pp. 151–158.	pl_PL
dc.references	Powell, D. M., Gartner, M. C. (2011). “Applications of Personality to the Management and Conservation of Nonhuman Animals”, in: Inoue-Murayama, M., Kawamura, S., Weiss, A. (eds.), From Genes to Animal Behavior: Social Structures, Personalities, Communication by Color. Tokyo: Springer, pp. 185–199.	pl_PL
dc.references	Probucka, D. (2017). “European Philosophy and Its Negative Impact on the Treatment of Animals”. Zoophilologica. Polish Journal of Animal Studies, 3, pp. 155–162.	pl_PL
dc.references	Probucka, D. (2018). “On the Concept of Ecological Solidarity. What Connects Animal Rights with the Rights of Human Beings?”. Humanistyka i Przyrodoznawstwo, 24, pp. 39–47.	pl_PL
dc.references	Puryear, S. (2017). “Schopenhauer on the Rights of Animals”. European Journal of Philosophy. DOI: 10.1111/ejop.12237	pl_PL
dc.references	Rawls, J. (1971). The Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.	pl_PL
dc.references	Regan, T. (1983). The Case for Animal Rights. Berkeley: University of California Press.	pl_PL
dc.references	Regan, T. (2010). “Animals as Subjects-of-a-Life”, in: Keller, D. R. (ed.), Environmental Ethics. The Big Questions. Chichester, UK: Wiley–Blackwell Publishing Ltd, pp. 161–168.	pl_PL
dc.references	Richter, S. H., Hintze, S. (2019). “From the Individual to the Population – and Back Again? Emphasizing the Role of the Individual in Animal Welfare Science”. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 212, pp. 1–8.	pl_PL
dc.references	Rowlands, M. (2012). Can Animals Be Moral? New York: Oxford University Press.	pl_PL
dc.references	Rowlands, M. (2016). “Are Animals Persons?”. Animal Sentience, 101, pp. 1–12.	pl_PL
dc.references	Rutherford, D. (2008). “Spinoza and the Dictates of Reason”. Inquiry. An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy, 51 (5), pp. 485–511.	pl_PL
dc.references	Rutherford, D. (2010). “Spinoza’s Conception of Law: Metaphysics and Ethics”, in: Melamed, Y. Y. and Rosenthal, M. A. (eds.), Spinoza’s ‘Theological-Political Treatise’: A Critical Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.	pl_PL
dc.references	Sankoff, H., (2012). “The Animal Rights Debate and the Expansion of Public Discourse: It Is Possible for the Law Protecting Animals to Simultaneously Fail and Succeed?”. Animal Law, 18, pp. 281–320.	pl_PL
dc.references	Schinkel, A. (2008). “Martha Nussbaum on Animal Rights”. Ethics and Environment, 13 (1), pp. 41–69.	pl_PL
dc.references	Siemek, M. (2021). Inedita. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.	pl_PL
dc.references	Singer, P. (1978). “Animal Experimentation”, in: Reich, W. T. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Bioethics, vol. 1, London–New York: Collier Macmillan Publishers, pp. 79–83.	pl_PL
dc.references	Skidmore, J. (2001). “Duties to Animals: The Failure of Kant’s Moral Theory”. Journal of Value Inquiry, 35, pp. 541–559.	pl_PL
dc.references	Somek, A. (2016). “Zur Rekonstruktion des Rechts (2): Die Prinzipien des Rechtsstaates”, in: Koller, P. and Hiebaum, Ch. (eds.), Jürgen Habermas: Faktizität und Geltung. Berlin– Boston: De Gruyter.	pl_PL
dc.references	Stilt, K. (2021). “Rights of Nature, Rights of Animals”. Harvard Law Review Forum, 134, pp. 276–285.	pl_PL
dc.references	Sunstein, C. (2002). “The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer”. University of Chicago Public Law & Legal Theory Working Paper, 30. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.323661	pl_PL
dc.references	Swan, D., McCarthy, J. (2003). “Contesting Animal Rights on the Internet: Discourse Analysis of the Social Construction of Argument”. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 22 (3), pp. 297–320.	pl_PL
dc.references	Thompson, M. (2011). “Enlarging the Sphere of Recognition: A Hegelian Approach to Animal Rights”. The Journal of Value Inquiry, 45, pp. 319–335.	pl_PL
dc.references	Thompson, M. (2012). Life and Action. Elementary Structures of Practice and Practical Thought. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.	pl_PL
dc.references	Ward, A. J. et al. (2020). “Social Recognition and Social Attraction in Group-Living Fishes”. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 8 (15), pp. 1–16. DOI: 10.3389/fevo.2020.00015	pl_PL
dc.references	Whitaker, A. M., Gilpin, N. W., Edwards, S. (2014). “Animal Models of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Recent Neurobiological Insights”. Behavioural Pharmacology, 25, pp. 398–409. DOI: 10.1097/FBP.0000000000000069	pl_PL
dc.references	Whitebook, J. (1979). “The Problem of Nature in Habermas”. Telos, 40, pp. 41–69.	pl_PL
dc.references	Wilson, M. (1999). “For They Do Not Agree in Nature with Us: Spinoza on the Lower Animals”, in: Gennaro, R. J. and Huenemann, C. (eds.), New Essays on the Rationalists. Princeton–NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 336–352.	pl_PL
dc.identifier.doi	10.18778/8220-570-1.32