Darwinian Dominion: Animal Welfare and Human Interests

Rating:
Summary: Good, but could have been better
Review: Petrinovich does an excellent job of laying out and then applying his particular theory of morality based on the implications of evolutionary biology -- essentially, Petrinovich believes traditional morality is governed to a large extent by sociobiological considerations and that in turn we can learn how to apply morality to controversial issues such as animal rights by examining the evolutionary implications of our actions.

Much of the book is concerned with the debate over animal testing for medical research, and this part of the book is outstanding. Petrinovich aptly defends medical experimentation and punctures holes in both the factual and philosophical claims of animal rights activists, while at the same time presenting a realistic look at genuine problems and debates over medical research.

Unfortunately the book is marred by the final two chapters, one on meat eating and and other on zoos & pets, which seem tacked on to the book as an afterthought. Neither chapter even comes close to the level of the rest of the book -- whereas Petrinovich is very familiar with the literature on medical experimentation, for example, his review of issues in animal agriculture are cursory and rely on a handful of sources with little attempt at a balanced review.

Still, Petrinovich's book is an important contribution to the debate over how humans treat animals.

Rating:
Summary: Misappropriating Darwin
Review: The book disappoints. Factually, there are very powerful cases of non-human animal bonding that exceeds even so-called normal human bonding. Secondly, the author neglects to take seriously the 'argument from marginal cases'. So, for example, autistic children, senile and retarded adult humans and the like, are simply incapable of even the minimal bonding that the author believes inhabits 'normal' humans. The result, on parity of reasoning, is that these marginal humans deserve lesser moral treatment. This seems at odds with our considered moral beliefs; indeed, many of us would think that these humans deserve extra care and consideration. The book is rather philosophically naive and leaves obvious objections unaddressed.