Final answer:
The statement is false; in indirect theories, animals are considered morally important due to their relationship to human interests, not on their own. There is a debate in philosophy about whether animals have intrinsic moral value, with some arguing from a human-centered perspective and others pointing out the roots of morality in social animals.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement 'In indirect theories animals warrant our moral concern on their own' is false. Indirect theories of moral concern, also known as anthropocentric or human-centered approaches, posit that animals deserve moral consideration not for their own sake, but in terms of their utility to humans or the human experience. Conversely, direct theories claim that animals have moral status independent of human interests, thus warranting moral concern due to their intrinsic value or sentient experiences.
Philosophers like Immanuel Kant have argued that humans are unique in their ability to act rationally. Kant's view that animals are driven by impulses and lack rationality has influenced the belief that only humans are deserving of moral consideration based on their ability to reason and exercise agency. However, other thinkers, such as the primatologist Frans de Waal, argue that aspects of morality, such as empathy and reciprocity, have their roots in social animals.
Furthermore, some ethical frameworks argue for an applied environmental ethic that reflects our obligations to the non-human world, although such approaches often retain elements of anthropocentrism, justifying environmental care through its benefits to human well-being and survival.