NEUROETHICS
Animal rights, animal minds, and human mindreading
1 Kings College, University of Cambridge, UK
2 Centre for Social Ethics and Policy, School of Law, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
Dr Matteo Mameli
Kings College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1ST, UK; gmm32{at}cam.ac.uk
Do non-human animals have rights? The answer to this question depends on whether animals have morally relevant mental properties. Mindreading is the human activity of ascribing mental states to other organisms. Current knowledge about the evolution and cognitive structure of mindreading indicates that human ascriptions of mental states to non-human animals are very inaccurate. The accuracy of human mindreading can be improved with the help of scientific studies of animal minds. However, the scientific studies do not by themselves solve the problem of how to map psychological similarities (and differences) between humans and animals onto a distinction between morally relevant and morally irrelevant mental properties. The current limitations of human mindreadingwhether scientifically aided or nothave practical consequences for the rational justification of claims about which rights (if any) non-human animals should be accorded.
Abbreviations: SAP, scientific animal psychology
Keywords: animal rights; mindreading; animal cognition; evolution; anthropomorphism
![]()
CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
Technorati What's this?
Register for free content
The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.
Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.
