Animal Ethics

SEPTEMBER 14, 2012

The animal rights movement is not for the faint of heart. How we change the dominant misconception of animals—indeed, whether we change it—is to a large extent a political question. To overcome the collective entropy of these forces-against-change will not be easy.

Animal Rights Movement 40

Animal Rights Movement Animal Rights Rights Los Angeles 40

Animal Ethics

JULY 24, 2012

Because animals are sentient (i.e., can experience pleasure and pain) and because they not only have but can act on their preferences, any view that holds that pleasures or pains, or preference-satisfactions or frustrations matter morally is bound to seem attractive to those in search of the moral basis for the animal rights movement.

Los Angeles 40

Los Angeles Animal Rights Movement Factory Farm Factory Farming 40

Animal Ethics

SEPTEMBER 6, 2012

There are also some things we cannot learn by using humans, if we respect their rights. The rights view merely requires moral consistency in this regard. ( Tom Regan , The Case for Animal Rights , updated with a new preface [Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2004], 388 [first edition published in 1983])

Los Angeles 40

Los Angeles Science 2004 Animal 40

Animal Ethics

AUGUST 24, 2012

halting the destruction of natural habitat and closer surveillance of poaching, with much stiffer fines and longer prison sentences), the rights view sanctions this intervention, assuming that those humans involved are treated with the respect they are due. Too little is not enough. (

Los Angeles 40

Los Angeles Animal 2004 Endangered Species 40

Animal Ethics

MAY 28, 2012

With the argument of the present chapter serving as the backdrop, the conclusion we reach is that to deny consciousness or a mental life to mammalian animals is an expression of human chauvinism. (

Humane 40

Humane Los Angeles Neglecting 2004 40

Animal Ethics

AUGUST 15, 2012

The mere size of the relative population of the species to which a given animal belongs makes no moral difference to the grounds for attributing rights to that individual animal or to the basis for determining when that animal's rights may be justifiably overridden or protected. (

Endangered Species 40

Endangered Species Species Los Angeles Morals 40

Animal Ethics

JUNE 27, 2012

Tom Regan , The Case for Animal Rights , updated with a new preface [Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2004], 174-5 [italics in original; ellipsis added; endnote omitted] [first edition published in 1983]) Moral agents are not nonrational, do not have "only a relative value," and are not things.

Los Angeles 40

Los Angeles Morals Animal 2004 40