ABSTRACT
Do we feel an intrinsic revulsion to the idea of changing an animal’s nature?1 And if we do, why should this be considered in any way morally relevant? Most contemporary philosophers tend to think it is not. However, it has been suggested that there ‘is a case for claiming that emotions are sometimes a critical element of moral attitudes, being powerful motives for which there is no conventional vocabulary’, and that they might represent ‘a legitimate expression of “righteous indignation”’.2 Along those lines, the Banner Report emphasized the fact that an objection ‘is often stated in emotional terms is not sufficient reason for discounting it: revulsion or disgust at certain uses of animals may be perfectly rational and founded upon a conviction … as to the intrinsic wrongness of what is proposed.’3
