2026-06-07T23:41:36Zhttps://docta.ucm.es/rest/oai/request

oai:docta.ucm.es:20.500.14352/1015252025-05-09T23:54:44Zcom_20.500.14352_14col_20.500.14352_15

00925njm 22002777a 4500 dc Pacheco Faria, Catia Gisela author Paez, Eze author 2019 In this article, we claim that animal ethics and environmental ethics are incompatible ethical positions. This is because they have incompatible criteria of moral considerability and they have, at least in some cases, incompatible normative implications regarding the interests of sentient individuals. Moreover, we claim that environmentalist views lead to an insurmountable dilemma between inconsistency and implausibility and fail to properly account for the importance of wild animal suffering. From this it follows not only that (a) we can endorse one of the two views but not both at the same time but also that (b) we have overriding reasons to reject environmentalism and endorse some animal ethics view. Faria, C., & Paez, E. (2019). It’s Splitsville: Why Animal Ethics and Environmental Ethics Are Incompatible. American Behavioral Scientist, 63(8), 1047-1060. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764219830467 0002-7642 10.1177/0002764219830467 https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/101525 https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764219830467 It’s Splitsville: Why Animal Ethics and Environmental Ethics Are Incompatible