Abstract
Evaluation sub-question n°1: what are the problematic ethical aspects of animal studies that semiotics can answer?
This chapter is meant to present the different problems one can be confronted with while studying animals, starting with general issues. It will thus tackle the philosophical difficulty represented by the fact of working with living beings, especially the difficulty in trying to understand foreign minds. The question of emergency situations and their handling will also be addressed. It will then examine the issues regarding ethics applied to animal studies directly, such as the problems raised by the study of endangered species, cognitively complex species, or even the question of animal suffering. In the end, we will present solutions that the semiotic methodology brings, both for general issues and for more specifically ethical problems.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
P. Delahaye, “To Care, to Look After, to Protect: Semiotics of Benevolent Violences”, Hybrid Natures, Tartu, 2018.
- 2.
On June 26th, 2018, 11 black rhinoceroses are moved from the Nairobi park to the Nakuru park by the Kenyan Wildlife Service (KWS). The ignorance of the reactions of the rhinoceroses led to a series of mistakes (the cages were too large, unsuitable sedation, inadequate surveillance) which caused a grave stress syndrome. This, coupled with the stifling of warnings regarding the high salinity of the watering hole for the animals, who ended up suffered from salt poisoning, resulted in the deaths of 10 of the rhinoceroses. Alive but weakened, the eleventh was unable to properly defend himself against an attack by lions days after his transfer, and he died from his wounds on July 31st, 2018. The story has been described as the biggest fiasco in wildlife conservation.
References
Association Grand Paris Sémiotique. (2019). L’Engagement. Confrontations sémiotiques. To be published.
Béata, C. (Ed.). (2009). Zoopsychiatrie: L’attachement. Marseille: Solal Editeurs.
Béata, C. (2013). Au risque d’aimer. Paris: Odile Jacob.
Bertrand, D., & Darras, B. (2019). In Association Grand Paris Sémiotique, L’Engagement. Confrontations sémiotiques. To be published.
Christen, Y. (2011). L’Animal est-il une personne ? Barcelone: Flammarion.
De Waal, F. (2013). Le Bonobo, Dieu et nous. Lonrai: Les Liens qui Libèrent.
De Waal, F., & Robert, M. (2002). De la réconciliation chez les primates. Paris: Flammarion.
Delahaye, P. (2013). Application de la zoosémiotique à l’éthologie: peut-on parler de culture animale ? Paris: Université Paris V René Descartes.
Despret, V. (2009). Il est temps d’en finir avec Harlow. In C. Béata (Ed.), Zoopsychiatrie: L’attachement (p. 13). Marseille: Solal Editeurs.
Eco, U. (1999). Kant et l’ornithorynque. Paris: Grasset.
Estay, V., & Horrein, R. (2019). Reculer pour mieux s’engager ? Sémiotique et Cultural Studies. In Association Grand Paris Sémiotique, L’Engagement. Confrontations sémiotiques. To be published.
Festing, M. F. W. (1998). Reducing the use of laboratory animals in biomedical research: Problems and possible solutions. Alternative to Laboratory Animals, 26, 283–301.
Feynman, R. P. (2000). Le cours de physique de Feynman 5: Mécanique quantique. Paris: Dunod.
Flecknell, P. A. (1994). Refinement of animal use – assessment and alleviation of pain and distress. Laboratory Animals, 28, 222–231.
Fossey, D. (1970). Making friends with mountain gorillas. National Geographic, 137, 48–67.
Fouts, R., & Mills, S. T. (1998). L’école des chimpanzés: ce que les chimpanzés nous apprennent sur l’humanité. Paris: J. C. Lattès.
Goodall, J. (1986). The Chimpanzees of Gombe: patterns of behavior. Boston: Bellknap Press of theHarvard University Press.
Guillaume, A. (2014). Animal: « être sensible » unanimement désensibilisé. Sémiotique du sensible. Revue trimestrielle de la Fondation Droit Animal, Éthique et. Sciences, 81, 35–37.
Hoffmeyer, J. (2008). Biosemiotics. An examination into the signs of life and the life of signs. Scranton: University of Scranton Press.
Kull, K. (1998). On Semiosis, Umwelt, and Semiosphere. Semiotica, 120(3/4), 299–310.
Russell, W. M. S., & Burch, R. L. (1959). The principles of humane experimental technique. London: Methuen.
Ryabov, V. A. (2016). The study of acoustic signals and the supposed spoken language of the dolphin. St. Petersburg Polytechnical University Journal: Physics and Mathematics, 2(3), 231–239.
Smith, A. (Yankelovich, D.). (1972). Supermoney. New York: Popular Library.
Sueur, C., & Pelé, M. (2016). Social network and decision-making in primates: A report on Franco-Japanese research collaborations. Primates, 57, 327–332.
Tammet, D. (2009). Je suis né un jour bleu (p. 84). Paris: Éditions.
Wechkin, S., Masserman, J. H., & Terris, W. (1964). Shock to a conspecific as an aversive stimulus. Psychonomic Science, 1, 47–48.
Whiten, A., & Boesch, C. (2001). The cultures of chimpanzees. Scientific American, 284, 60–67.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Delahaye, P. (2019). Animal Studies, Animal Ethics. In: A Semiotic Methodology for Animal Studies. Biosemiotics, vol 19. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28813-6_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28813-6_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-28812-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-28813-6
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)