Skip to main navigation Skip to main content Skip to page footer

Animal Ethics

Animal ethics poses a major problem for modern ethical theories (utilitarianism, deontology). One tends to agree, more or less quickly, on whether animals may be tormented. But how is this to be justified? Given the philosophical construction of most theories of animal ethics, this becomes a problem in itself, since animal ethics must not be understood merely as the ethics of a morality concerned with individual animals. Animal species, biodiversity, and ecosystems are also important concerns of animal ethics. It is here that most theories of animal ethics fail. In the texts I provide here, I am continually striving to develop an animal ethics capable of doing justice to animal-moral issues in such a way that they can be interpreted as aspects of a more comprehensive ethics for the entire world. Everything in the world can be directly morally relevant, and this fact can be philosophically reconstructed and understood.

Applied Ethics (Introduction) | 2nd Edition 2026: NOMOSalber

The second edition further develops the book's approach in a fundamental way. In place of an introduction to clearly delimited fields of applied ethics, a new conception emerges: applied ethics as a topological practice of orientation.

Ethics is thereby understood not as a set of rules that derives ready-made answers from general principles, but as navigation within complex moral terrain. A functional multi-level architecture connects semantic, ontological, epistemic, practical and inclusion-theoretical questions, making visible where arguments shift their concepts, presuppositions, validity claims or addressees.

Medical, animal and environmental ethics are also reorganised in this way: not primarily according to their respective subject areas, but according to the complexity of moral addressing – ranging from direct through indirect to mediated forms of address.

The aim is not an ultimate justification “from above”, but a reflective translation between experience and argument, from which a composed fit (resultant fittingness) for the concrete case may emerge.

The second edition thus offers less a moral judge's bench than a chart table for ethical orientation: open to different paths, precise in its analysis, and closely attuned to the conflicts of practical life.

Topics in Animal Ethics

Colorful cubist image on the metaethics of animal ethics. Within geometrically fragmented fields of colour, a contemplative human profile appears alongside a large animal eye, a dog, a pig, and a bird, as well as a scale and landscape and network structures. These motifs allude to moral perception, human-animal relationships, deliberation, and differing perspectives.

Metaethical Norms of Animal Ethics

Animal ethics asks not only what we owe animals, but also how such judgements are justified. Five metaethical norms help to examine animal-ethical theories with regard to direct moral relevance, equal worth, blind spots and their capacity for complex weighing.

Expressive-abstract painting in bold shades of red, yellow, and blue. At the centre stands a hyena that appears both threatening and familiar. On the left, a human figure holds a heavy chain; on the right, a child leans against the animal; further human faces merge geometrically into the figure of the hyena. The interlocking forms illustrate contradictory roles and cultural categorisations of humans and animals.

“Character masks” in animal ethics

In animal ethics, character mask refers to culturally and socially shaped roles through which humans and animals perceive one another: for example, as pet, livestock, wild animal, animal lover or keeper. The term makes visible that these images are not merely individual views, but historically grown forms of thinking, feeling and acting. In this way, the concept helps us understand why the human-animal relationship is marked by contradictory perceptions and valuations. The image, in the style of Karel Appel, follows a series of pictures entitled “Hyena Men” by Pieter Hugo.

Surrealist oil painting in the style of Max Ernst: a human, a dog, a pig and a fox in front of petrified, coral-like rock formations and a monumental voxel- or bird-like figure in earthy tones.

Speciesism – The Species Boundary as a Moral Boundary?

The accusation of speciesism compares the differing treatment of humans and animals with racist or sexist discrimination. But does this analogy hold? This page examines biological species boundaries, cultural human-animal boundaries, and the question of when unequal treatment becomes arbitrary.

Fox next to an empty chair at a consultation table – a symbol of animal experience without a voice of its own in moral discourse.

Experience Without a Voice

Animals can suffer, experience well-being, and turn towards their environment, but they cannot translate their experience into the space of moral reasons themselves. Animal ethics must therefore advocate without appropriating, and translate without emptying experience of its content.

A pig stands alone between two crowds: on the left, a red, shouting mass with megaphones; on the right, a grey row of mask-like figures; its shadow branches forward like a topographical map.

Beyond Outrage and Conviction

Animal ethics often begins with outrage – and quickly ends in a commitment to a particular position. Yet emotions alone do not constitute arguments, and belonging to a moral camp is no substitute for forming a judgement. This page examines how well-founded orientation can emerge from irritation, without trivialising animal suffering or allowing ethics to become a matter of professed conviction.

Non-hierarchical mobile with a red human figure, a black animal, a blue plant, and a coloured group representing a population, set against a background of topographic lines. Title:

Moral Status – Who Counts Morally?

Moral status refers to who must be morally taken into account – but not to what extent or with what consequences. Moral relevance, equal worth, rights and practical decisiveness are distinct questions. This page breaks down the concept of status and shows its function within the terrain of animal ethics.

A richly detailed Baroque copper engraving depicting a complex ethical deliberation. An allegorical figure of Moderation, holding reins and a plumb line, stands at the centre. Through inscribed reins (e.g. "Frenum Reasonableness," "Frenum Avoidability") she connects a group of animals on a rock (left) with fields of human action such as research, nutrition, and consumption in a fortified city (right). Between the two sides, an unfinished stone bridge spans an abyss, its piers inscribed with terms such as "Proportionality," "Necessity," and "Degree of Responsibility." Latin banners and ornamental motifs frame the scene.

From Value to Obligation – The Missing Bridge

From “Animal suffering is bad” it does not follow without further ado that “Everyone must live vegan.” Between value and duty lie bridging principles such as avoidability, alternatives, reasonableness, degree of responsibility, and proportionality. At the same time, this page shows why it likewise does not follow that the use of animals is a mere private matter.

Colourful pop-art image: A winged pig flies over clouds, gears and rooftops – a visual allusion to the flying pig from the Simpsons episode "Lisa the Vegetarian".

Simpsonian Animal Ethics

“Lisa the Vegetarian” (The Simpsons, 1995, S07E05) does not tell an edifying tale about love for animals, but rather a story of insight. Lisa sees in the lamb on the plate what everyone else no longer sees. What follows is the Platonic price of insight: mockery, isolation, the accusation of being an agitator. It is only on a rooftop garden above the city – in the light, outside the familiar world – that she finds affirmation. The question of the episode is not whether Lisa is right, but what it costs to be proven right. The episode is a piece of animal ethics.