Abstract
The aim of this chapter is to investigate in a strategy that is in our view pervasive not only, but particularly in animal ethics. As emotionally charged field of argumentation, the debates seem to be susceptible to provocative strategies.
The underlying, potentially provocative, hypothesis is that provocation is an indispensable, yet often tacit vehicle of ethical debates (as inert habits are often called into question), which is concealed by the claim to provide rational arguments. This can be illustrated with moral individualists that build the mainstream in animal ethics, represented e.g. by Peter Singer, whose theory has been debated controversially, but also by Tom Regan or Jeff McMahan.
We are not going to tackle the question how one should evaluate this issue, however, we seek to understand why they are often seen as 'agents provocateurs' and how they try to trigger reactions on the part of his readers, opponents or supporters. But also relationalists such as Cora Diamond or Alice Crary use provocative statements as vehicle of explanation, e.g. when complaining about the self-proclaimed 'moral radicals' among the individualists (Crary) and their 'nagging moralistic tone' (Diamond).
Through our analysis, we aim to point out the function of provocation and of stirring emotions drawing from resources in philosophical analyses of rhetoric and argumentation theory from Aristotle to current debates. In conclusion, we raise the question if there should be an ethics of ethical debates that is sensitive for the benefits and the offensiveness of provocation.