Movatterモバイル変換

[0]ホーム
URL:

Skip to main content

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.

Academia.eduAcademia.edu
I'm an assistant professor in Applied Ethics at the Complutense University of Madrid.

In the past I have been a postdoctoral researcher of the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology at the Centre for Ethics, Politics and Society at the University of Minho. I received my PhD in moral philosophy from Pompeu Fabra University, where I defended a thesis on the problem of wild animal suffering and intervention in nature. I am a board member of the UPF Centre for Animal Ethics and have been a lecturer in Ethics and Sustainability at the same university.

I work in normative and applied ethics, in particular, in how they relate to the consideration of nonhuman animals. Moreover, I am interested in how distributive principles apply to nonhuman animals and what this entails regarding our reasons to improve their well-being. I am currently interested on the impact of our current decisions on future individuals, especially in what regards far future scenarios of astronomical suffering. I’m also more broadly interested in analytic approaches to the wrongness of discrimination as well as to other moral issues concerning gender and sexuality.
less

Related Authors

InterestsView All (22)

Uploads

Publications by Catia Faria

Research paper thumbnail of Vulnerability and the Ethics of Environmental Enhancement
Vulnerability and the Ethics of Environmental Enhancement
Ethics, Policy and the Environment, 1-19., 2023
Research paper thumbnail of Animal Ethics in the Wild. Cambridge University Press (2023)
Animals, like humans, suûer and die from natural causes. This is particularly true of animals liv... moreAnimals, like humans, suûer and die from natural causes. This is particularly true of animals living in the wild, given their high exposure to, and low capacity to cope with, harmful natural processes. Most wild animals likely have short lives, full of suûering, usually ending in terrible deaths. This book argues that on the assumption that we have reasons to assist others in need, we should intervene in nature to prevent or reduce the harms wild animals suûer, provided that it is feasible and that the expected result is positive overall. It is of the utmost importance that academics from diûerent disciplines as well as animal advocates begin to confront this issue. The more people concerned with wild animal suûering, the more probable it is that safe and eûective solutions to the plight of wild animals will be implemented in the future.
Research paper thumbnail of La ética de la intervención en la naturaleza: una visión panorámica a partir de los incendios forestales de Australia
Animal Ethics Review, 2022
Bajo la idea ampliamente aceptada de que debemos ayudar a les demás en situación de necesidad, se... moreBajo la idea ampliamente aceptada de que debemos ayudar a les demás en situación de necesidad, se sigue que debemos ayudar a los animales que viven en la naturaleza previniendo o reduciendo el impacto de los daños naturogénicos que les afectan. Esta idea, vívidamente plausible en el caso de los incendios forestales de Australia, es respaldada por diferentes teorías éticas. No obstante, se ha intentado disputarla de diferentes maneras. Si se somete a análisis, sin embargo, se observa que, una vez rechazado el especismo, tenemos, al menos, tan buenas razones para ayudar a los animales afectados por los incendios de Australia como para ayudar a los demás animales en la naturaleza sufriendo por motivos naturales.
Research paper thumbnail of Réquiem por un mito. Desmontando la compatibilidad entre la ética animal y la ética ambiental
Analéctica, 2022
La ética ambiental y la ética animal son posiciones éticas incompatibles. Defienden tesis irrecon... moreLa ética ambiental y la ética animal son posiciones éticas incompatibles. Defienden tesis irreconciliables respecto del problema de la consideración moral y dan lugar a prescripciones normativas contradictorias. En otras palabras, divergen respecto de qué entidades importan y de cómo debemos actuar hacia ellas. Esto es particularmente claro considerando el caso de los animales que viven en la naturaleza. Mientras para la ética animal debemos actuar de manera a satisfacer los intereses de estos animales, no dañándoles y ayudándoles cuando están en situación de necesidad, para la ética ambiental, dado que lo que debemos hacer es actuar de manera a preservar las entidades y procesos naturales, a menudo, hacerlo implica causar daño y no ayudar a estos individuos. Esta incompatibilidad permanece cierta independientemente de que, en ocasiones, perseguir fines ambientalistas suponga algún beneficio para ciertos animales no humanos; de que el holismo ontológico sea cierto o de que defendamos una posición (eco)feminista. A pesar de ello, la compatibilidad entre la ética ambiental y la ética animal sigue siendo una creencia extendida. Ello se explica, en larga medida, por sesgos cognitivos arraigados, tales como el razonamiento motivado y el sesgo de confirmación.
Research paper thumbnail of From the Horse's Mouth: A non-speciesist approach to Media and Communication Ethics
Ramon Llull Journal of Applied Ethics, 2021
Media and communication ethics have been evolving in response to historical events that are shapi... moreMedia and communication ethics have been evolving in response to historical events that are shaping communication practices. This has led to an increasing questioning of the Western-white-patriarchaldominant canon and to the vindication of a more inclusive media and communication ethics. Yet the ethical discussions in the field have been systematically carried out from an anthropocentric-speciesist approach, that is, one which restricts ethical claims to the human species alone. Following the recent work of Clifford G. Christians, this paper claims that the pursuit of a global and inclusive media and communication ethics can only be successfully achieved within a non-speciesist framework. We argue that, under scrutiny, Christians' case for a "human-centered" communication ethics, when taken consistently, sets the case for a cosmopolitan justice between the species. In practice, this amounts to media and communication ethics listening to what comes from the horse's mouth
Research paper thumbnail of Ética-Ambiental
Compêndio em Linha de Problemas de Filosofia Analítica, 2020
A ética ambiental é normalmente definida, em sentido amplo, como a reflexão racional sobre qual d... moreA ética ambiental é normalmente definida, em sentido amplo, como a reflexão racional sobre qual deve ser a interacção dos agentes morais com os conteúdos não humanos do mundo natural. Neste artigo, "ética ambiental" refere o conjunto de perspectivas éticas que assumem, para além de certo grau de desacordo interno, um compromisso normativo específico com (i) uma tese sobre considerabilidade moral e (ii) uma tese sobre razões morais para agir. Em primeiro lugar, o artigo examina (i), à luz das perspectivas dominantes em ética ambiental. Em segundo lugar, avalia (ii) a partir do alegado conflito entre a ética ambiental e a ética animal. Finalmente, formula algumas questões em aberto para investigação futura.
Research paper thumbnail of Naturaleza y ética post-darwiniana
¿Qué es la naturaleza? La naturaleza es el mundo físico. Básicamente, todo lo que existe en el se... more¿Qué es la naturaleza? La naturaleza es el mundo físico. Básicamente, todo lo que existe en el sentido material. Ello incluye a animales, plantas, océanos y rocas, procesos como el clima y todos los productos de la acción humana. En el lenguaje coloquial, sin embargo, el término "naturaleza" se usa para referir el medio natural o el entorno salvaje. Es decir, aquellas áreas que no han sido significativamente alteradas por los seres humanos, por oposición a áreas predominantemente construidas por estos, como, por ejemplo, una ciudad. Este segundo sentido de "naturaleza" es el que se usará aquí.
Research paper thumbnail of It’s Splitsville. Why Animal Ethics and Environmental Ethics are Incompatible
It’s Splitsville. Why Animal Ethics and Environmental Ethics are Incompatible
American Behavioral Scientist, 2019
In this article, we claim that animal ethics and environmental ethics are incompatible ethical po... moreIn 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.
Research paper thumbnail of Why Environmentalism Cannot Beat Denialism. An Antispeciesist Approach to the Ethics of Climate Change
Why Environmentalism Cannot Beat Denialism. An Antispeciesist Approach to the Ethics of Climate Change
Núria Almirón and Jordi Xifra (ed.), 'Climate Change Denial and Public Relations'. London: Routledge, 2019
Research paper thumbnail of Climate Change Impacts on Free-Living Nonhuman Animals. Challenges for Media and Communication Ethics (2019)
Studies in Media and Communication, 2019
The mainstream discussion regarding climate change in politics, public opinion and the media has ... moreThe mainstream discussion regarding climate change in politics, public opinion and the media has focused almost exclusively on preventing the harms humans suffer due to global warming. Yet climate change is already having an impact on free-living nonhumans, which raises unexplored ethical concerns from a nondiscriminatory point of view. This paper discusses the inherent ethical challenge of climate change impacts on nonhuman animals living in nature and argues that the media and communication ethics cannot avoid addressing the issue. The paper further argues that media ethics needs to mirror animal ethics by rejecting moral anthropocentrism.
Research paper thumbnail of Why we should not postpone awareness of wild animal suffering. Commentary on Ng on Animal Suffering. Animal Sentience
Animal Sentience, 2016
Ng (2016) restates his case for the importance of wild animal suffering (1995). Nevertheless, he ... moreNg (2016) restates his case for the importance of wild animal suffering (1995). Nevertheless, he suggests that the most effective way to reduce nonhuman suffering overall is to give short-term priority to the suffering of farmed animals. It is not clear that Ng puts forward a successful case. Our current efforts to prevent animal suffering overall should also include raising awareness of wild animal suffering now as well as promoting research on safe and feasible ways to prevent wild animal suffering in the future.
Research paper thumbnail of Devemos ajudar os animais na natureza?
Este artigo defende que se temos razões para ajudar seres humanos em situação de necessidade devi... moreEste artigo defende que se temos razões para ajudar seres humanos em situação de necessidade devido a eventos naturais, então temos razões similarmente fortes para ajudar indivíduos não humanos que sofrem na natureza. Desde qualquer posição moral plausível, sempre que uma intervenção na natureza for exequível e razoavelmente esperável que tenha resultados positivos para os animais afectados, devemos levá-la a cabo.
Research paper thumbnail of Dinámica de poblaciones y sus implicaciones para la ética de la gestión ambiental
Se cree habitualmente que los seres humanos no poseen ninguna obligación de prevenir o aliviar lo... moreSe cree habitualmente que los seres humanos no poseen ninguna obligación de prevenir o aliviar los daños que los animales padecen en la naturaleza. Lo que pasa en el medio natural no es de nuestra incumbencia moral. Esta idea, que ha sido referida en la literatura como la " intuición laissez-faire " (Palmer 2010), se asienta en dos asunciones fundamentales: (i) los animales salvajes llevan, en general, vidas con un alto nivel de bienestar (o, por lo menos, con un bienestar neto positivo), solamente amenazadas por interferencias humanas ocasionales, y (ii) sólo tenemos razones para ayudar a los animales en necesidad cuando ese estado de cosas está causado por la acción humana. El objetivo de este artículo es disputar ambas asunciones.
Research paper thumbnail of Igualdad, prioridad y animales no humanos
Se asume habitualmente que a los seres humanos se les debe dar una consideración moral preferente... moreSe asume habitualmente que a los seres humanos se les debe dar una consideración moral preferente, cuando no una prioridad absoluta, sobre los miembros de otras especies. Esta idea ha prevalecido de manera general en el debate moral y político. Con todo, también ha sido disputada desde diferentes perspectivas normativas. Consideremos, por ejemplo, la teoría de los derechos. Como es sabido, Tom Regan (1983) ha defendido que todo individuo que es sujeto de una vida tiene valor intrínseco, con lo que satisface una condición suficiente para la plena consideración moral. Otras teóricas y teóricos han sostenido que a los animales deben serles reconocidos derechos sobre la base de otras perspectivas, como la kantiana, tal y como lo ha defendido Christine Korsgaard , o la contractualista, como lo ha hecho Mark Rowlands (1998). El antropocentrismo ha sido igualmente disputado desde las teorías basadas en el carácter. Por ejemplo, Stephen Clark (1977) ha argumentado que difícilmente puede alguien ser un agente moral virtuoso si desconsidera los intereses de ciertos individuos, bien por la especie a la que pertenecen, o bien por otras características que consideraríamos irrelevantes cuando se trata de actuar hacia los miembros de nuestra propia especie. Y lo mismo se ha afirmado desde la ética del cuidado. Teóricas como Josephine Donovan (2007) han argumentado que alguien no puede ser una agente cuidadora ("caring agent") si ignora la grave situación en la que se encuentran los animales no humanos. Además, el antropocentrismo ha sido también cuestionado desde otras teorías que * Este artículo fue publicado en Ávila Gaitán, Ivan Darío (comp.). La cuestión animal(ista). Bogotá: Desde Abajo Ediciones, 2016: 327-340. Una versión anterior de este texto fue publicada originalmente en Inglés con el título "Equality, Priority and Nonhuman Animals" en Dilemata 14, 2014: 225-236.
Research paper thumbnail of Interview with Jeff McMahan. Making a Difference on Behalf of Animals Living in the Wild.
Relations: Beyond Anthropocentrism, May 15, 2015
Jeff McMahan currently holds the prestigious White’s Chair of Moral Philosophy at Oxford Universi... moreJeff McMahan currently holds the prestigious White’s Chair of Moral Philosophy at Oxford University. He has previously been a professor of philosophy at Rutgers University (USA). He has written extensively about theoretical and applied ethics, two of his most notable contributions being The Ethics of Killing: Problems at the Margins of Life and Killing in War. Professor McMahan is also known for his work in animal ethics, being one the first major philosophers to seriously address the situation of animals in nature. In his New York Times article The Meat Eaters he defends the view that if the suffering of nonhuman animals is morally relevant, then we should also be concerned with the suffering of animals living in the wild. In this way, he concludes that we should intervene for their benefit whenever it is in our power to do so.
Research paper thumbnail of Animals in Need. The problem of wild animal suffering and intervention in nature, Relations, vol. 3 (1) (ed.)
Relations 3 (1), May 2015
Studies about the moral consideration of nonhuman animals have experienced a tremendous developme... moreStudies about the moral consideration of nonhuman animals have experienced a tremendous development in the last decade. An important topic which is recently receiving increasing attention is the idea that we may have reasons not only to abstain from harming wild animals but also to help those in need. Life in the wild is far from being idyllic: wild animals undergo systematic harms on a daily basis, due to intra and interspecific aggressions (predation, parasitism) and other natural causes (e.g. starvation, disease, harsh weather conditions). Though it is usually accepted that we have no obligation to prevent or to reduce the occurrence of these harmful states of affairs, if the interests of nonhuman animals are morally relevant at all, it seems that the interests of animals living in the wild should also be taken into account in moral deliberation. This number will be dedicated to addressing in detail this vastly unexplored issue, challenging life in the wild as a “flat moral landscape”.
Research paper thumbnail of Equality, priority and nonhuman animals
Dilemata 14, 2014: 225-236
This paper assesses the implications of egalitarianism and prioritarianism for the consideration ... moreThis paper assesses the implications of egalitarianism and prioritarianism for the consideration of nonhuman animals. These implications have been often overlooked. The paper argues that neither egalitarianism nor prioritarianism can consistently deprive nonhuman animals of moral consideration. If you really are an egalitarian (or a prioritarian) you are necessarily committed both to the rejection of speciesism and to assigning priority to the interests of nonhuman animals, since they are the worst-off. From this, important practical consequences follow for the improvement of the current situation of nonhuman animals.

Log In


or



orreset password

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

Need an account? Click here to sign up
[8]ページ先頭
©2009-2025 Movatter.jp