Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-92wsb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-15T15:19:38.799Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Animals, future generations, and resource-rational contractualism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 June 2026

Harry R. Lloyd Open the ORCID record for Harry R. Lloyd [Opens in a new window]
Harry R. Lloyd*
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Institutional mailing address: Philosophy Department, UNC Chapel Hill, Caldwell Hall, 240 East Cameron Ave., NC 27599, USA www.harryrlloyd.com hrl@unc.edu
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Levine et al. understate the range of folk moral judgments that cannot be easily explained by their contractualist theory of moral cognition (including judgments about future generations and nonhuman animals). On the flipside, Levine et al. also overstate the range of moral judgments that cannot be easily explained by rival deontological or consequentialist theories of moral cognition.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 49 , 2026 , e149
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Boonin, D. (2019). Dead wrong: The ethics of posthumous harm. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caviola, L., Althaus, D., Mogensen, A. L., & Goodwin, G. P. (2022). Population ethical intuitions. Cognition, 218, 104941. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104941 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caviola, L., Kahane, G., Everett, J. A., Teperman, E., Savulescu, J., & Faber, N. S. (2021). Utilitarianism for animals, Kantianism for people? Harming animals and humans for the greater good. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150(5), 1008–1039. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000988 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahane, G., & Caviola, L. (2023). Are the folk utilitarian about animals?. Philosophical Studies, 180(4), 1081–1103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-022-01833-2 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuflik, A. (2009). Hypothetical consent. In Franklin Miller, & Alan Wertheimer (Eds.), The ethics of consent: Theory and practice (pp. 131–162). Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Law, K. F., Syropoulos, S., Coleman, M., Gainsburg, I., & O’Connor, B. B. (2024). Moral future-thinking: Does the moral circle stand the test of time?. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672241284324 Google ScholarPubMed
Levine, S., Kleiman-Weiner, M., Chater, N., Cushman, F., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2024). When rules are over-ruled: Virtual Bargaining as a contractualist method of moral judgment. Cognition, 250, 105790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2024.105790 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schubert, S., Caviola, L., Savulescu, J., & Faber, N. S. (2024). Temporal distance reduces ingroup favoritism.CrossRefGoogle Scholar