Justice for Animals: Our Collective Responsibility

by Martha C. Nussbaum

A “brilliant” (Chicago Review of Books), “elegantly written, and compelling” (National Review) new theory and call to action on animal rights, ethics, and law from the renowned philosopher Martha C. Nussbaum.Animals are in trouble all over the world. Whether through the cruelties of the factory meat industry, poaching and game hunting, habitat destruction, or neglect of the companion animals that people purport to love, animals suffer injustice and horrors at our hands every day. The world needs an ethical awakening, a consciousness-raising movement of international proportions. In Justice for Animals, one of the world’s most renowned philosophers and humanists, Martha C. Nussbaum, provides “the most important book on animal ethics written to date” (Thomas I. White, author of In Defense of Dolphins). From dolphins to crows, elephants to octopuses, Nussbaum examines the entire animal kingdom, showcasing the lives of animals with wonder, awe, and compassion to understand how we can create a world in which human beings are truly friends of animals, not exploiters or users. All animals should have a shot at flourishing in their own way. Humans have a collective duty to face and solve animal harm. An urgent call to action and a manual for change, Nussbaum’s groundbreaking theory directs politics and law to help us meet our ethical responsibilities as no book has done before.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Animals, Science, Politics, Nature, Environment

382 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 3, 2023

About the author

Martha C. Nussbaum is Ernst Freund Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago, appointed in the Law School and the Philosophy Department. Among her many awards are the 2018 Berggruen Prize, the 2017 Don M. Randel Award for Humanistic Studies from the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the 2016 Kyoto Prize in Arts and Philosophy.

Reviews

[Angie Boyter · Rating 4 out of 5]

Justice for animals? It’s up to us!
In Justice for Animals, philosopher Martha Nussbaum extends her thoughts on what we owe our fellow humans to other animals and makes her case for what constitutes just treatment of animals and what actions we might take to achieve it, in our personal lives but especially in law and policy. She considers various types of animals with respect to their own makeup, recognizing that different animals have different ways of flourishing that should be recognized and respected. She also discusses the different settings in which we interact with animals, such as companion animals inside and outside our homes, animals in zoos and controlled nature reserves, and animals in the wild.
As much as I enjoyed and recommend Justice for Animals, it is a tough read for two reasons. The examples of injustice will move readers emotionally; at several points they brought tears to my eyes. The description of ritual Zulu bull-killing was so horrific that I fantasized subjecting its proponents to the same treatment they give the bulls.
The second reason is that this is a serious work of philosophy, stimulating but sometimes challenging intellectually. Nussbaum presents her case by extending her theory of the Capabilities Approach that she professes in all of her writings, to enable people and animals to live a decently flourishing life. She explains this approach as the book progresses, but it can take a bit of thinking to get fully on board with the theory if you are not already familiar with it. She also explains the approaches of several other modern philosophers like Christine Korsgaard, who favors a Kantian theory, giving them plaudits for their reasoning but also explaining where she differs. Her discussion is not confined to the contemporary scene. One of the fun aspects of the book for me was her citing of thinkers like Aristotle and Epicurus.
Rest assured that not all of the animal anecdotes are downers. There are wonderful examples of how animals lead their lives and interact with each other, and I had some smiles at examples of human-animal interactions and activities to help the other animals of this world flourish.
While I do not agree with every detail of what she says, Nussbaum has raised important issues and made some excellent recommendations. This book is definitely too intellectual to be a best seller candidate, so it is not likely to reach the broad audience its recommendations deserve, but if it appeals to you, do read it. And then tell your friends.
I received an advance review copy of this book from Edelweiss and the publisher.

[Jorge Zuluaga · Rating 5 out of 5]

Sensacional, increíblemente claro, maravillosamente empático.

Solo se me ocurren, para comenzar esta reseña, estos superlativos, que tal vez molesten a personas más objetivas. Ellos describen fielmente lo que me quedó de este fantástico texto de Martha Nussbaum, un libro que disfrute de la primera a la última página.

Los filósofos enredan hasta un saludo, como decimos en mi país (Colombia). Sin embargo, Nussbaum en este texto (y en otros que he leído salidos de su pluma) demuestra que con los problemas centrales de la crisis ecosocial que vivimos (desigualdad, hambre, crueldad animal) no hay que andarse con tecnicismos. Se debe escribir para que cualquiera entienda.

"Justicia para los animales" desarrolla una propuesta filosófico y jurídica para, como su nombre lo indica, encontrar las mejores manera de hacer justicia con los demás animales con los que compartimos la biosfera. No es un libro técnico, ni un libro académico, pero creo que es lo suficientemente detallado para entender que las propuestas de Nussbaum pueden implementarse exitosamente en muchas sociedades humanas, mejorando las condiciones de vida de todos los animales, incluyéndonos.

El libro comienza con una revisión amplia y muy ilustrativa de las diversas posiciones filosóficas que se han asumido a lo largo de la historia alrededor del status de los animales desde la perspectiva humana. Comenzando con la denominada scala naturae, la más antigua de las posturas, que, como su nombre lo indica, ubica a los animales en una especie de pirámide de desarrollo o escalera evolutiva, con los humanos naturalmente encabezando la pirámide y por lo tanto mereciendo un trato privilegiado (la excepcionalidad humana); pasa después por el enfoque utilitarista, tan común en el conservacionismo biologicista del presente, que busca minimizar el sufrimiento, pero que deja por fuera las experiencias individuales de los animales; y llega hasta el enfoque Kantiano, desarrollado modernamente por la filósofa Christine Koosgard, que reconoce la que todos los animales sintientes son fines en sí mismos y no pueden ser tratados como objetos para los fines humanos.

Durante la presentación de cada uno de los enfoques que se han considerado en la historia, Nussbaum procede a hacer una crítica más o menos exhaustiva de porque fallan para resolver el problema que hemos creados los humanos para los demás animales: la destrucción de habitats, la extinción por causas no biológicas, y el encierro, la esclavitud y la tortura a la que los hemos sometido para que cumplan funciones para nosotros.

Como solución a los problemas de los que esos enfoques adolecen, Nussbaum presenta su propio enfoque que denomina enfoque de las capacidades y que en pocas palabras (hay que leer el libro para conocerlo en todos sus detalles) plantea que debemos conocer a los animales no humanos y entender cuáles son los objetivos que persiguen en su vida, cuáles son los medios que buscan para lograr esos objetivos. Como nuestra intervención en la naturaleza es tan poderosa, estamos en la obligación de partir de ese conocimiento para ofrecer o garantizar a todos esos animales los medios para desarrollar sus capacidades. Nuestras acciones de conservación, nuestras leyes deberían, según la propuesta de la filósofa, alinearse con ese objetivo.

Lo mejor del libro, como dije antes, es que no solo se trata de una colección árida de textos filosóficos o jurídicos para justificar este programa, sino una lúcida exposición que no deja duda de que puede para implementarse sin muchas dificultades en los sistemas legales de los países del mundo. El libro incluye además interesantes capítulos dedicados a los problemas centrales que deben considerarse para resolver "el problema de los animales no humanos". Temas como la definición de lo que la sintiencia y el conato (un término nuevo que aprendí leyendo este libro), la muerte, los dilemas tráficos, la relación diferencial que tenemos con los animales de compañía en contraste con los animales salvajes, la responsabilidad humana entre muchos otros. ¡Una maravilla!

Hace unos meses tuve en Twitter una discusión bastante salida de tono con biólogos conservacionistas y con oscuros personajes antianiamalistas que rondan en esa red social. En la discusión yo defendía la idea de que hay que ser "individualmente empáticos" en el caso particular de los hipopótamos del Magdalena medio Colombiano, que estaban a punto de sufrir la eliminación a través de cacería controlada. Para quiénes no los conozcan, los hipopótamos del Magdalena son una población de estos animales, considerados aquí una "especie invasora" (como se la llama técnicamente), que fue indebidamente introducida en el ecosistema por las excentricidades de los narcotraficantes colombianos de los 1980. Hoy, constituyen una amenaza para muchas especies locales y el control de su población se ha convertido en un problema muy serio para las autoridades del país.

Ojalá hubiera leído a Nussbaum antes de esa discusión.

Este libro esta lleno de los elementos filosóficos y jurídicos que soportan mi posición, posición que todavía conservo y que sostiene que cada uno de esos hipopótamos está allí buscando desarrollar sus capacidades como mejor puede (ese es su conato) y no merece morir a manos de los humanos, quienes somos los responsable de que hayan nacido en un ecosistema ajeno a su especie.

Para mi sorpresa, en este libro aprendí que Colombia es el único país que ha reconocido derechos ciudadanos individuales a los hipopótamos de modo que, por ejemplo, y esta es una de las propuestas más interesantes de la filósofa, estos animales puedan presentar una demanda ante el Estado, naturalmente no ellos mismos, sino elevada por humanos en su representación, como ocurre por ejemplo con personas con limitaciones mentales. Esta fue una de las propuestas que hice en medio de las discusiones en Twitter, discusiones que solo terminaron con bloqueos mutuos y borrando trinos para evitar el trolling tan común en esas red social.

En fin. Sean animalistas, como me identifico yo, o no, ¡lean ya a "Justicia para los animales".

[Reyer · Rating 3 out of 5]

In Justice for animals (2023) pleit filosoof Martha Nussbaum (1947) voor rechtvaardigheid voor dieren op basis van een radicaal andere kijk op en behandeling van dieren. Het boek bevat twee pijlers. Eerst zet Nussbaum haar filosofie – een brede versie van de capabilities approach – uiteen om dieren een betere plek te geven in ons denken. Vervolgens werkt ze een aantal praktische vragen uit en adviseert ze over aanpassingen van het recht. Dit tweede deel sprak me minder aan, omdat het teveel details bevat die aan de geïnteresseerde leek voorbijgaan en omdat Nussbaum haar ambities niet altijd waarmaakt. Het eerste deel daarentegen is baanbrekend en lezenswaardig. Ik had geluk dat ik net ervoor Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? van Michael Sandel had gelezen, waardoor ik de theorie meteen kon duiden.

Law is built by humans using the theories they have. When those theories were racist, laws were racist. When theories of sex and gender excluded women, so too did law. And there is no denying that most political thought by humans the world over has been human-centered, excluding animals.

Om verandering te bereiken moet de mens zich volgens Nussbaum eerst verwonderen over het leven van dieren, met hen meeleven en zich ten slotte verontwaardigd voelen over het onrecht dat hen wordt aangedaan. Daarvoor is het wel belangrijk te begrijpen waaruit dat onrecht bestaat. Nussbaum gaat eerst in op drie bestaande theorieën, waarna ze verdergaat met haar versie van de capabilities approach. Als eerste beschrijft Nussbaum een benadering die zij So like us noemt. Deze benadering brengt een rangorde aan onder dieren en verleent aan de ‘mensachtigen’ bepaalde rechten. Volgens Nussbaum is de benadering echter te nauw, willekeurig en antropocentrisch. Als tweede komen de utilitaristen aan bod, die bij Nussbaum meer genade vinden dan bij Sandel. Ze noemt de utilitaristen zelfs ethical heroes vanwege hun principiële toewijding om dieren soortgelijk te behandelen. Haar kritiek is echter dat dieren – net als mensen – niet te beschouwen zijn als containers of satisfaction: een theorie die slechts uitgaat van pijn en genot volstaat niet. Als derde komt de benadering van Kant aan de orde in de versie van Christine Korsgaard. Hierin staan dieren – ook degenen die niet aan de spiegeltest voldoen – naast de mens als wezens die doelen nastreven en zichzelf betekenis toekennen; de mens is hoogstens speciaal, maar niet beter. Nussbaum gaat in vergaande mate mee met deze benadering, maar heeft bezwaar tegen de antropocentrische focus op ethische reflectie en het maken van keuzen. Ten opzichte van de eerste benadering is er hoogstens sprake van een sprong van likeness naar humanity. Korsgaard gaat volgens haar enerzijds onvoldoende in op nieuwe wetenschappelijke inzichten over dieren, terwijl ze anderzijds niet onderkent dat ook de menselijke moraal gebaseerd is op een instinctieve evolutionaire gave om te overleven en bloeien.

Zo komt Nussbaum tot de radicalere capabilities approach. Dieren moeten haars inziens kunnen streven naar dezelfde mogelijkheden die voor mensen belangrijk zijn, bv. als het gaat om leven, gezondheid en lichamelijke integriteit. De aanspraak op deze mogelijkheden is te zien als de toekenning van rechten, die constitutioneel zouden moeten zijn vastgelegd. Daarbij is voor Nussbaum van wezenlijk belang dat dieren sentient wezens zijn, een term die ook primatoloog Frans de Waal oppert in Mama's laatste omhelzing . Dieren hebben een eigen blik op de wereld en zijn zich zintuiglijk bewust, ze hebben een gevoel van betekenis, streven naar wat in hun ogen goed is en zijn daarom meer dan slechts gevoelig voor pijn of genot. Voor Nussbaum is sentience doorslaggevend voor de vraag of een dier naast pijn ook onrecht kan worden aangedaan. Als het antwoord nee is, zoals waarschijnlijk het geval is voor bomen en planten en bepaalde diersoorten, wil dat overigens niet zeggen dat er dus geen ethische zorgen zijn; de aard is alleen anders. (Nussbaum weigert zich definitief uit te spreken over een rangschikking, begrijpende dat we nog veel kennis missen.)

In de laatste hoofdstukken gaat Nussbaum in op de praktische betekenis van de theorie, die niet leidt tot een categorische afwijzing van het gebruik van dieren. In feite is Nussbaum alleen meedogenloos jegens ernstig dierenleed. In haar eigen worsteling met het eten van vlees komt een bereidheid naar voren om argumenten tegen elkaar af te wegen. In zoverre lijkt de praktische uitwerking minder radicaal dan haar theorie zelf.

Justice for animals bevat een goede theoretische onderbouwing voor toekomstige maatregelen om dieren te beschermen. Ik zou niet zeggen dat het boek zelf een katalysator voor actie is; ondanks de vele voorbeelden is het vooral uiteenzettend. En passant zet Nussbaum wel de toon, bijvoorbeeld door over dieren te schrijven als individuen met een naam en persoonlijkheid. Het is onwaarschijnlijk dat de nieuwe benadering meteen tot verandering leidt, gezien de noodzaak van globale consensus, het voordeel dat mensen nog altijd genieten van het gebruik van dieren en de grote kennisachterstand om dieren te begrijpen. Een betere wereld begint echter met boeken als deze.

[J Earl · Rating 5 out of 5]

Justice for Animals by Martha Nussbaum is a very accessible presentation of her capabilities approach applied to animal rights. Both informative and thought-provoking, this moves the debate onto new and wider ground.

If you're familiar with her approach as it applies to humans, you will have a better appreciation for the application to nonhuman animals. Some, who admittedly have never read Nussbaum, make the unsubstantiated claim that she somehow doesn't argue for some kind of universal healthcare. Ignore those people, they are what are often called posers. Ignorant yet insistent on trying to look oh so ethical. Fail!

While this is a detailed and relatively thorough presentation of her approach, and refutations of other theories, this is still a work in progress. What it does is move us toward an appreciation of animals without ranking them in some way (more or less human-like for instance). There are a couple things I appreciate in the abstract but wonder how they could be implemented. Even with a focus on law and justice, many of the issues still heavily involve the changing of people's mindsets toward animals, and what they might be willing change in their own lives.

Which brings us to another ignorant position people take. Not ignorant in the ultimate goal they profess to desire but in their fantasy that any major change in society can and must be done at once and immediately. The people I am talking about are the extremists among the vegans. Like one review I read, Nussbaum is taken to task for making changes in her diet but not yet being vegan. This person, while perhaps correct in finding some factual counterpoints to Nussbaum doesn't lament how long it is taking for society to change but rather that because Nussbaum isn't already a perfect vegan all of her ideas should be discarded. Again, posing and faux-righteousness, you know, like posing with your back to the camera to demonstrate you have no creativity whatsoever.

I would highly recommend this to readers who want a framework within which to make change, both ethical and, specifically, legal. You don't have to be familiar with Nussbaum to get a lot from this book. If you're not familiar with her, just try to be an active engaged reader and not make asinine assumptions about her beliefs just because your reading comprehension skills are lacking. This is not a perfect work, but it is designed to move the debate forward, not to be a snap-in-place corrective to everything.

Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via NetGalley.

[Samantha · Rating 2 out of 5]

I have mixed feelings about this book. The author writes about if everyone became a vegetarian or vegan then it would put too much strain on land, however, most land is used for animal production or for crops to feed those animals. It was very counterproductive and I kind of had a hard time listening to the book after that point.

I did like her point on having dogs as companions. If you are going to have them in your life, you should be required to meet all thier needs of exercise and living a life equal to a life if they were wild. So many people "own" dogs, but do not walk them or give them the appropriate love and attention.

[Tammihiiru · Rating 2 out of 5]

Honestly, I wish I could give this a better review. While I like the principle of Nussbaum's Capabilities Approach, I find the application of it towards non-human animals here lacking. Throughout the book she shows such a consistent lack of knowledge about the biology and behaviour of the animals she is talking about that I found myself bewildered and even angered when reading certain chapters. The book then could have benefited greatly from a more interdisciplinary approach, co-authorship of other people with more experience in this specific field, or in the least a more thorough reading of previous literature on animal ethics. From such a big name in the field of philosophy I really did expect more.

[Cozy Reviews · Rating 2 out of 5]

As a life long vegan and advocate for all animals I was dismayed to find out this author does not practice veganism and looks upon animals as property to be exploited. I was disappointed in her heartless beliefs and found myself unable to finish the book. Her beliefs about animals are not for the betterment of animals . Its distressing that during this time where we know the horiffic damages of factory farming to millions of animals that the author is not better educated in advocacy. If your looking for a book that is in line with your beliefs of animal advocacy this is not the author for you.

[Elisabeth Galbraith · Rating 4 out of 5]

Travail remarquable dans les chapitres faisant une généalogie des arguments éthique en faveur de la défense de la vie animale, et je crois que le portrait qu’elle fait met très bien en valeur son approche des capabilités. Je me doute qu’elle trouve un peu le moyen d’excuser la pêche parce qu’elle mange encore du poisson étant « une femme relativement âgée très active physiquement en grand besoin de protéines et qui digère mal les légumineuses. » comme quoi meme les philosophes peuvent etre en dissonance cognitive

[Caroline · Rating 4 out of 5]

this was a marathon but so worth it!! gave me a really helpful framework for thinking & talking about justice. docked a star for some unhelpful comparisons, but I recommend this if you're interested in learning more about ethics and how we protect them (or don't) in the world today. also, bees have one million neurons in their brains! love that

[Eric · Rating 3 out of 5]

Issues of the care and preservation of our environment are requiring more and more of our attention. This book is a volume devoted to the question of the rights of animals - all animals - from Elephants to Whales to Pigs in factory farms, to tiny birds and domestic animals. Nussbaum uses these five animals as illustrations of key points of Animal Justice as each represent unique threats - poaching of ivory, death by ingestion of water pollution/plastics, extreme confinement, environmental degradation, and social needs of those closest to us.

Nussbaum is a lawyer, and this book is written as a way to try and present an air-tight case. Very detailed in the laying out of her new ethic called the Capabilities Approach, significantly based upon the thinking of Aristotle. To do so, she first examines the 3 main historical schools of thought related to Animal Justice, and why she debunks each as being not usual for our time. Of most intrigue to me personally was the Utilitarianism approach, based upon the initial writings of Jeremy Benthem. Being trained as an Economist, Benthem caught my attention as he is the founder of what in Economics is known as Marginal Utility theory, and he still noted in basic introductory classes in Micro Economics.

The book is very detailed and nuanced. If you have the stamina to go through the detailed steps of both the weaknesses of previous thought and her idea for a new approach, you will find a very tight argument for a change in our understanding of animal rights, welfare and justice which could contribute greatly to our quest for Environmental Justice.

[Luis Miguel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Este es un libro del que no había oído hablar ni había pretendido buscar. Llegó a mí por sorpresa navegando en el catálogo de eBiblio en mi teléfono móvil. Como amante de los animales, el título no dejó de interesarme. Haber leído otros textos de la autora, junto a una sinopsis en completa sintonía con mis preocupaciones morales, hizo la labor restante de convencerme de su lectura.
Recién terminado, solo puedo decir que es una maravilla, digna de cualquier mención honorífica. El ensayo es riguroso, a la par que ameno, con una dosis enorme de aprendizaje, propuestas, debate, presentación de problemas y ampliación de horizontes. Es un libro que instruye, nutre la sensibilidad ética y muestra la maravillosa diversidad de la vida animal, todo ello orientado a un fin claro: defender a los animales no humanos su cualidad de sujetos de derechos y, por tanto, personas jurídicamente hablando a las que proteger legalmente frente a todo tipo de violación de sus derechos: asesinato y caza, destrucción de hábitats, comercialización, encierro...
La argumentación ética es excelente, al igual que su propuesta. Más impresionante aún es la cantidad de información que aporta acerca de las necesidades, formas de vida, cultura y más capacidades características de muchas especies distintas. Verdaderamente, hace que sientas admiración y una profunda conexión, basada en el respeto y el amor, hacia todos los demás animales con los que compartimos el planeta.
No dejéis de leerlo. No os arrepentiréis.

[Nick Klagge]

I always like reading Nussbaum. For a while I was disappointed that she didn't cite Donaldson & Kymlicka's "Zoopolis," but she finally did. I think her proposals here are practically speaking quite aligned with theirs, though she focuses more on using the framework of her "capabilities approach" while they focus more on a political philosophy framing.

When trying to approach our relationship with animals from a principled perspective, it seems hard to avoid very radical conclusions! The one book I have read that did not (Shelly Kagan) I found very unconvincing, for reasons Nussbaum outlines well.

[Diane Jeske · Rating 2 out of 5]

Nussbaum applies her capabilities approach to make an argument in support of justice for animals. But this book suffers from several flaws: she dismisses alternative theories very hastily without any acknowledgment of their nuances, and her descriptions of animals are very brief. She makes bad excuses for her own eating of fish and actually says that cats do alright when neglected because unlike dogs they don’t need attention and affection! Those are the sorts of misconceptions that have led to viewing cats as disposable and not in need of care. No book seeking a better world for animals should involve stale stereotypes or facile excuses for bad behavior.

[Jasper · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dit boek is ongelooflijk omvangrijk in opzet, goed geïnformeerd, inzichtelijk, toegankelijk, en duidelijk met empathie geschreven. De capabiliteitsbenadering is een complete, en ook een diepgaand sympathieke zienswijze, door zijn focus op het floreren van (dieren)levens. Daarnaast, zoals Nussbaum uiteenzet, dicht deze belangrijke gaten in eerdere theorieën. Dat maakt dit werk net zo interessant als prettig om te lezen.

[Sam Peterson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a robust exploration of what it would mean for morality and law to take animals seriously. For Nussbaum, justice means not just preventing animal suffering caused by humans, but actively encouraging animals to live fulfilled lives as individuals. I think that this is a useful course correction from utilitarian views that, intentionally or not, leave you with a very shallow and sad image of what animal life is and can be. It's also a huge improvement over typical conservationist attitudes that have a tendency to treat animals in terms of species rather than as individuals. I agree pretty profoundly with Nussbaum that reducing animal rights to species rights leaves open almost all the worst practices currently in place and also just misses something pretty profound about what animals are (i.e. independent, albeit socially embedded, individual actors with individual goals and agency).

The scope is huge which is both one of the book's big advantages and one of its flaws. It is an advantage because it has actual moral ambition and doesn't let itself be constrained by what seems easy. It also means that there are tons of interesting individual sections and paragraphs. The sections on cats and dogs are especially interesting. Nussbaum's background in development econ and feminist philosophy/history are also both super valuable, especially the latter. A lot of animal rights activists instinctively reach to the metaphor of abolition, but the emancipation of women (in its scope, complication, and nature as an ongoing project) is probably a better example of the kind of necessary widespread social change.

However, Nussbaum is not a scientist and I think deals too sparingly with the details of animal lives as opposed to legal and moral arguments. The facts, as she does repeatedly emphasize, should inform what justice means for each species. But we spend so little time establishing the facts! So many of the examples we are given are weirdly from fiction and classic literature. Much more discussion of Greek theatre than you would expect in a book like this lol. There is one great chapter where she does more exploration of the science, but a lot of additional work is needed.

A related, and bigger concern, is that she putatively is trying to address all species of animals in all possible conditions (domestic, wild, etc.), but the emphasis ends up being overwhelmingly on the large mammals which make up a vanishingly small proportion of all animal life. This is part of a large problem which is that the book doesn't spend nearly enough time thinking quantitatively. It spends so much time on effectively marginal cases like elephants and essentially zero time on insects or even rodents. Not only does this lead to too much focus on attractive/gregarious large mammal species, but also it means that she reckons very little with the resources and tradeoff costs of her proposals. There are very few numbers and almost no cost benefit analysis.

All that being said this is a GREAT book. There should be way more people thinking about and grappling with these issues. It is super worth reading if you have an interest in philosophy, animals, or law.

[Rhys · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Wonder is childlike, it is our humanity at play in a world of remarkable beings. … But in Aristotle’s conception, and I will borrow and extend it, wonder is especially closely connected to our awareness of movement and sentience. We see and hear these creatures moving and doing all these things, and we imagine that something is going on inside: it’s not sheer random motion, but directed somehow by an inner awareness, by a someone. Wonder is connected to our perception of striving: we see that creatures have a purpose, that the world is meaningful to them in some ways we don’t fully understand, and we are curious about that: What is the world for them? Why do they move? What are they trying to get? We interpret the movement as meaningful, and that leads us to imagine a sentient life within. … That more complex idea lies at the heart of the Capabilities Approach. Wonder, like love, is epistemic: it leads us out of ourselves and awakens a nascent ethical concern" (p.10) and a call to justice.

Nussbaum offers a clear-eyed approach to our relationship to nonhuman beings based on their capabilities and some sentience of these capabilities. She makes the case for justice, and shows how this notion of justice falls short as law.

[Johannes · Rating 5 out of 5]

Just amazing. Such a well put theory for justice for none-human animals. She argues with clarity and backed with science. Brilliant perspective on zoos, the "wild" and everything in between.

Her excuse to eat some meat is just terrible and forced though, but the other 99% is brilliant. One of the best books I've ever read.

[Philip Cohen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Take your sense of ethics and justice to a higher level. Recommended.

[Jacob Williams · Rating 4 out of 5]

I’m always going to remember this as the book that tried to tell me sharks don’t feel pain (!!!). That’s the sort of claim you should be really sure about before you let it guide your behavior, and I’m skeptical that the evidence is sufficiently solid; for some notes of caution, see Wikipedia[1] and Max_Carpendale’s EA forum post.[2]

Anyway, what I admire about this book is the breadth of issues it grapples with. Nussbaum doesn’t restrict herself to a couple hot-button topics (contrast with Animal Liberation Now’s (review) focus on animal experimentation and factory farming), nor is she content to speak in generalities: she’s got opinions on which specific types of animals can be kept ethically in zoos and which can’t, on the conditions under which animals can be put to work (e.g. drug-sniffing dogs), on how to responsibly and cautiously take steps to reduce the suffering of wild animals, etc. She systematically reevaluates humanity’s numerous relationships to animals from a principled standpoint.

The first few chapters consider different frameworks for thinking about our ethical obligations to animals. Nussbaum criticizes what she labels “the ‘So Like Us&rsquo approach”, which “seeks recognition of legal personhood, and some autonomy rights, for a specific set of animal species, on the grounds of their humanlike capacities.”[3] An example of this approach is trying to persuade people that primates should have rights by showing videos of them “using sign language, giving displays of empathy when shown a film of humans displaying emotions, and so forth”.[4] This approach is related to a self-serving ideology in which humans are viewed as the ideal. When the group with the most power (humans) sets themselves up as the standard by which the worth of all other groups will be measured, the fairness of the standard seems highly questionable. Nussbaum interestingly notes that this ideology is connected with abuse of humans:

It leads to ugly projects in which humans imagine transcending their animal bodies by casting aspersions on the smells and fluids of the body. These projects are often accompanied by attempts to subordinate some other group of human beings, on the grounds that they are the true animals. Bad smell, contaminating physicality, and hypersexuality are imputed to some relatively powerless subgroup, as an excuse for violent types of subordination. One may trace these ideas in US racism, in the Indian caste hierarchy, in misogyny everywhere, in homophobia, in prejudice against aging people.[5]

I agree with her rejection of the “so like us approach”, though she also thinks the utilitarian approach (which I prefer) is inadequate; I split my comments on her objections to utilitarianism into a separate post. She’s more fond of Korsgaard-style Kantianism (I reviewed one of Korsgaard’s books here), but has issues with that too. She prefers a framework pioneered by Amartya Sen called the “Capabilities Approach”:

This approach argues that a society is even minimally just only if it secures to each individual citizen a minimum threshold amount of a list of Central Capabilities, which are defined as substantial freedoms, or opportunities for choice and action in areas of life that people in general have reason to value. Capabilities are core entitlements, closely comparable to a list of fundamental rights. But the Capabilities Approach emphasizes that the goal is not simply high-sounding words on paper. It is to make people really able to select that activity if they want to. So it emphasizes material empowerment more than do many rights-based approaches.[6]

She wants to extend this framework so that it guarantees appropriate entitlements for all sentient creatures, not just humans.

As a fundamental theory, I don’t find this convincing. One problem is hidden in the phrase “areas of life that people in general have reason to value.”[7] How can we determine what people (and animals) have reason to value, as opposed to what they merely in fact value, without referring to some more fundamental theory like utilitarianism or Kantianism? I think it’s important to do so; if we build our list of Central Capabilities by reflecting only on what people/animals in fact value, the list will end up including some rights to mistreat or exploit other people. (For example, consider how many men think they have the right to demand obedience of their wives, and view having a submissive wife as a key part of a good life.)

Relatedly, the framework lacks a principled way of handling idiosyncratic/niche preferences. If just one person values something, but it’s extremely important to them, should it count as a Central Capability? Or if only a tiny but persistent subculture values it? Where’s the line? I think the book discussed this at some point but I didn’t come away with a clear picture.

On a practical level, though, building a list of Central Capabilities does sound like a useful approach to legislation. Nussbaum advocates for applying the CA in a Rawlsian manner:

…Rawls urges…to propose political principles that are, first, narrow in scope, not covering all areas of human concern (not talking, for example, about the possibility of life after death), and, second, thin, expressed in a neutral ethical language rather than in the metaphysical language of one group rather than another. (Thus, for example, the ethical language of human dignity would be preferred to the sectarian notion of the soul.) If we manage things with restraint, the political principles can form what Rawls called a “module” that all citizens who hold different reasonable comprehensive doctrines … can attach to their own doctrines, whatever they are. Eventually, it is hoped, the political principles will become the object of an “overlapping consensus” among the partisans of all those doctrines. This may take a long time, but the proponent of the CA ought to be able to sketch a path by which peoples of differing views might ultimately come to agree on these core principles.[8]

(Relatedly, see my review of Rawls’s Political Liberalism.)

Later chapters consider various specific issues through the lens of the Capabilities Approach. I appreciated that there’s a chapter on “Tragic Conflicts and How To Move Beyond Them”. Sometimes, I feel, when people see a genuine conflict of interest (such as between a person who needs meat to survive, and the animal which must be killed to provide that meat), they take it as permission to stop thinking critically about the situation at all. Nussbaum mentions a couple ways this happens:

The first is what we might call the weeping-and-wailing approach: people wring their hands and say how terrible things in our current world are, without even showing curiosity about what might make things better. The second, closely related, approach is what we might call self-hating defeatism: it is because of human overreaching that we got to the bad place where we currently are, and there is nothing to do about it except to give up a lot of our ambitions and to live a reduced and chastened lifestyle.[9]

(I’d add a third: blithely assuming that we might as well do whatever we feel like. Think of the person who, confronted with criticism of their behavior, is content to respond “life’s not fair” and keep doing what they were doing.)

We can do better, as Nussbaum points out:

Here we arrive at the philosopher G. W. F. Hegel’s approach to tragedy, which I follow. Tragic clashes between two spheres of value, he argued, stimulate the imagination to think ahead and change the world: for it would be better if one could find a way to prevent the tragic choice from arising in the first place. The bad choice is before us, now; but the next time let’s try to figure out how to prevent it.[10]

The chapter on companion animals includes several interesting proposals, such as:

- Establishing “in each city and state an Office of Domestic Animal Welfare … in more or less the way that a department of child welfare operates…”[11]

- Treating failure to train a dog as a case of neglect[12]

- Requiring people to buy medical insurance for pets they adopt[13]

- Providing public funds for dog food to ensure pets of poor families are not malnourished[14]

Nussbaum also has a thoughtful take on our responsibilities to wild animals. The idea that we have the responsibility or even the right to intervene in nature is often, I think, perceived as hubristic, so I like how she turns the tables and shows the hubris involved in trying to recuse ourselves:

Beginning with a skeptical examination of the Romantic credentials of a common Western idea of “the wild” and of “Nature”, I argue that this idea is made by humans for human purposes and does not serve or even very much consider the interests of other animals. Moreover, today at any rate, there is no such thing as “the wild,” no space, that is, that is not controlled by humans: the pretense that “the wild” exists is a way of avoiding responsibility.[15]

I’ll close with a quote from her chapter on friendship with animals:

Genuine empathy must be based on knowledge…[16]

[1] “Pain in Fish,” in Wikipedia, August 13, 2023, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pain_in_fish&oldid=1170062033#Controversy.

[2] Max_Carpendale, “Sharks Probably Do Feel Pain: A Reply to Michael Tye and Others,” accessed August 15, 2023, https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/ibxetbhQzvpKER7R7/sharks-probably-do-feel-pain-a-reply-to-michael-tye-and.

[3] Martha C. Nussbaum, Justice for Animals: Our Collective Responsibility (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2023), 27–28.

[4] Ibid., 30.

[5] Ibid., 32.

[6] Ibid., 80.

[7] Ibid., emphasis added.

[8] Ibid., 93–94.

[9] Ibid., 174–75.

[10] Ibid., 175.

[11] Ibid., 206.

[12] Ibid., 208.

[13] Ibid., 210.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid., 224.

[16] Ibid., 272.

(crosspost)

[Jeremy Greenfield · Rating 5 out of 5]

While this was only the third book I’ve read about animal ethics, I have to say this is my favorite to date. I appreciate how it has helped me consider how to think abiut treating animals. When is it ok to kill animals? Are some animals more kill-able than others? Are humans markedly different from other animals?

The work of Peter Singer, the famous Princeton philosopher and Utilitarian or consequentialist has dominated how animal rights folks think about animals. I really appreciate him and his focus on avoiding suffering, but I also appreciated Nussbaum’s more expansive Capacities approach.

For her it’s not just that we want animals not to supper, we want them to have the opportunity to explore all their capacities.

A really rich and generative way to think through the topic.

[Dayton Martindale · Rating 4 out of 5]

I find much of her argument for the “capabilities approach” applied to nonhuman animals compelling and intriguing, and I am excited by some of the legal and political implications she lays out. I disagreed with a few of the ways she applied her theory, sometimes quite strongly (eg she is too soft on animal research), but overall a great and useful book.

[Luca Hahn · Rating 2 out of 5]

An attempt to draw attention to the appalling injustice that is happening to animals, with some valuable perspectives. However, it is utterly disappointing that even an author writing an entire book about justice for and rights of animals can still make the excuse that she needs animal products to get her protein... This shows how much really needs to be done to ensure animals are being treated with respect and compassion.

[VictorianYogi · Rating 1 out of 5]

Highly disappointed.
Early on, others here mentioned that she isn't vegan, but I decided to persevere. Unfortunately, it's a no for me.
Her two pages on veganism show a severe lack of research and ignorant dismissal of ideas that her book, all about our collective responsibility towards ALL animals, should support for farm animals as well.
At one point, she asks:
"What about chickens (the ones who are raised for their eggs, not for slaughter)" and then goes on to describe a fantasy world where hen mamas can frolick in the sunshine with a few of their chicks and be okay with that. This disregards firstly, that it is hard to draw a distinction between the chickens raised for slaughter and those for eggs (she immediately outlines this in her next sentence where she says that hens are exploited until they are killed, but it doesn't seem to click for her).
It also shows she didn't do much research on current farming practices vs. demand. Factory farming is the only way to meet society's high demand for animal products, having all the chickens in the world (current estimates are at about 33 billion birds) going on sunny chicken walks on green grass is absolutely not aligned with how current animal agriculture systems can operate.

Another quote "vegans, like abolitionists, deny the possibility of mutually beneficial symbiosis", is one I'm not even gonna try to unpack.

I'm tired of speciesism, especially when it masquerades behind claims of wanting justice for all animals. In an interview, she said:
"The most qualms I have about my own diet is dairy, because there's no way to think of the dairy industry that doesn't involve taking the calf from his mother. And that's a terrible loss to the mother and to the calf, of course. You could imagine how to reform it, but it would not be profitable at all. So I'm worried about the dairy industry. But right now, I still eat yogurt quite a bit. I think we shouldn't judge. We have to be people who are trying to do the best we can."

Seems like she is vegan in her heart, but not in her actions yet. I hope everyone who reads this book is able to apply the teachings of equality and justice to ALL animals, not just when it's convenient for them and doesn't interfere with their non-essential yogurt consumption.

TL;DR:
I'm confused how someone can write about morality but so blatantly be ethically hypocritical, I want my 38 bucks back

[Amanda · Rating 5 out of 5]

In this urgent call to action, philosopher and political theorist Martha C. Nussbaum uses wonder, compassion, and outreach as moral and philosophical frameworks for animal rights. Building on and critiquing historical ideas about animal justice (eg- Plutarch, Buddhism, stoicism, utilitarianism), Bentham's pleasure/pain, Singer, evolutionary kinship, the cruelty of factory farming, and on and on and on.. she constructs an important evidence based argument for revolutionizing the treatment and rights of animal lives. She outlines a new theory on animal justice (a capabilities approach) for law and policies, discusses how current research and science proves animals have subjective realities and experience pain, and how their desire to flourish is thwarted by human centered practices.

[Linda Snow · Rating 4 out of 5]

The present and future lives of animals all around our planet are in serious trouble, and we aren’t innocent in their destruction. This book shocked me into a new-for-me radical and revolutionary understanding. Martha Nussbaum discusses this subject thoroughly from the philosophical perspectives of animal rights, ethics, and law. She was able to teach me how it is our duty to view and protect animals truly as our friends, not just as their users and exploiters. I now believe we have a collective duty to face and to solve animal harm. All Creatures Great and Small was my first introduction to these beliefs. The second leap was my belief that all animals are like us in that they are the creations of whichever name of God you choose. This book is the third giant leap into understanding this Truth more deeply.

[Tbuikema · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting stuff! I’ve been thinking a lot, off and on, about our treatment of animals and the underlying ethics of the relationships, since reading Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation. Nussbaum’s book here talks about Singer’s philosophy as one angle into hers - they differ in the ethical basis, but agree in the end: we can do better. Her Capabilities Approach underpins her thinking in developing a consistent philosophy about how we should treat sentient animals. It is clearly aspirational and, likely, a long way off for humans to achieve. But anyone that reads this (and Singer) and gets to chose between their ethical approaches to our treatment of animals and, say, factory farming, has to be moved toward these philosophers.

[Stacy Lynn · Rating 3 out of 5]

The beginning of this book made me sob, the middle made me stretch my brain, and the end gave me a little hope (but not much). Nussbaum’s philosophical argument is compelling, animals deserve justice for their own sake. I believe it, and as an animal lover and vegetarian, I celebrate any philosophy that will move our society and the courts to protect ALL animals. But in a world where some humans don’t even care about other humans, I am skeptical. I know so many people who eat animals and are nowhere near to excepting the injustice and cruelty of the meat industry. After reading this book I am horrified I ever ate meat and that it took me so long to stop.

[Jessica Regan · Rating 2 out of 5]

Seems to misuse her own logic by ignoring the rights of fish, sheep, etc. not to be subjected to human domination. I wish that other animal-human relations scholars got half the attention she does

[Tom Booker · Rating 2 out of 5]

I really wanted to like this book because I care about animals and had heard that Nussbaum was a good writer. At first I liked the idea of applying the capabilities approach to animals. Nussbaum clearly showed the limitations of other animal ethics approaches, and the idea of treating *sentient* animals as individuals who need a flourishing life, and to do so in their own way, is better than simply reducing suffering.

Yet, I don't agree with some of her key arguments. For example, I don't agree that the reason death/killing is immoral is because we "have plans" and death gets in the way of that. I also think she misrepresented utilitarianism in some ways by attacking weaknesses like the problem of average happiness which can lead to mistreatment of individuals, though surely the calculation of death and suffering for the worst off is far greater than benefits so would indeed be what changes the average the most. I also didn't like how she referred to "Buddhists"/"Buddhism" or "vegans" believing this or that, while she explicitly names philosophers of certain schools. Why didn't she cite where she gets such claimed views from for these groups? Because she doesn't know much about them, probably. She also gets some basic facts wrong, like her claim that Greenland's Inuit people are "wealthy", which is not at all true; she does not even provide a source for this statement. Finally, her view that she can't be vegan because she can't digest lentils well is weak.

But more fundamentally, I decided I couldn't give this book more than 2 stars when she said this: "To say that it is the destiny of antelopes to be torn apart by predators is like saying that it is the destiny of women to be raped." What on Earth is she talking about? She has such a poor grasp on ecology, seeming to meet animals on their own playing field, yet applying human ethics to animal behaviour. Nussbaum is a self-avowed liberal and the same problem with liberalism comes across with animals: how do we accept people of all views, when some of those views go against such freedom e.g. fascists? Or for animals: how can we treat all animals as individuals with dignity, when for many animals their way of life is to kill and eat others? Her proposed solutions like contraception for zebras and closing off certain ecosystems to predators is crazy and promethean. Yes, humans have impacted every part of the planet, but this doesn't mean that "the wild" doesn't exist (any more), as she claims. If she was dropped in the middle of the Amazon rainforest or Antarctica, I think she would find that the wild is indeed in existence. Her insistence on "Hegelian solutions" also disregard many other important factors than the legalistic one that she obsesses about: for example, her advocacy for artificial meat pays no heed to the potential environmental consequences of such a technology.

[Cassie Thompson · Rating 5 out of 5]

From the first sentence or so, I knew that this was going to be really great. She does not mince words and clearly takes a really strong stance against human exploitation of animals. I love that. She presents lots of great arguments, and criticisms of other leading thinkers on this topic, even people who get a lot of the primary points correct.

Of course, there were a handful of things that I did not agree with. For example, her stance on eating meat, specifically fish since she does so herself. I think her bias (or cognitive, dissonance, or shame) regarding her own actions (past & present) also leads her to take the stance on euthanasia that she does, considering it acceptable in some circumstances for us to take the lives of animals. So she’s not really hardliner after all.
I also generally disagree with her belief that we need more legal and government intervention in somewhat trivial matters such as certain aspects of pet care, for example. She suggests that pet insurance should be mandatory the way that car insurance is, so I guess she wants us to get scammed twice? She goes on a few tangents like these which I don’t think really contribute to her larger project. They also reveal, I believe, a disconnect with the fact that there is growth and potential in people, who over time may learn to feed their pets better quality food, give them more exercise, etc. Or simply provide better care when they have better resources to do so. She seems set on penalizing them from the start, if not outright banning pet ownership. To me, it reads like allegiance with the establishment/system & lack of awareness about the resources available to people as well. She mentions subsidizing some of these proposed costs for poor people, but it sounds doomed to fail, considering all of the current hurdles and impediments to life that existing programs do not alleviate for these individuals. In other words, regulation should be concerned with life or death matters, and extreme harm. Not whether you have pet insurance and a Farmer’s Dog subscription.

Gripes aside, I do think she is among the more radical of the animal activists and philosophers concerned with animal rights, and overall I believe this was a really valuable contribution. Our views differ somewhat, but I do respect the belief that animals have a right to their lives, and that we should be doing everything we can to remove harm and abuse from those lives, but especially wrongful death.