This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Thanks to Patty at AnimalRights-Do Whatever is Necessary for reposting this list of 40 ways to help lab animals. Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing, in collaboration with a number of government agencies, has established AltWeb, the Alternatives to Animal Testing Web site.
A few years ago, philosopher David Oderberg published an essay entitled " The Illusion of AnimalRights " in The Human Life Review. A few months ago, having belatedly discovered Oderberg's essay, I wrote a critique entitled " Oderberg on AnimalRights ," which I duly submitted to The Human Life Review for publication.
I've been reading the literature of animalrights for nearly three decades, and contributing to it for the past decade or so. fails to tell his readers what it is to have a right), fails to distinguish between positive rights and negative rights, and in general glosses over all the important questions, philosophical and otherwise.
I'm a longtime proponent of animalrights, but this suit is ridiculous. Applying it to nonhuman animals is a stretch. Second, it is not a necessary condition for the possession of rights (legal or otherwise) that one be a person. First, the 13th Amendment was designed to abolish human chattel slavery.
(With the benefit of hindsight, I regret that I did allow the concept of a right to intrude into my work so unnecessarily at this point; it would have avoided misunderstanding if I had not made this concession to popular moral rhetoric.)
Here is a resource for anyone who is doing research on, or is merely interested in, animalrights. Tom Regan is one of the founders of the modern animal-rights movement. I will add the site to the blogroll.
I don't expect that many readers will be converted to the cause of animalrights by reading this book. Franklin, AnimalRights and Moral Philosophy [New York: Columbia University Press, 2005], xvii-xviii) There is a vital long-term benefit as well. I hope that this book will help this cause along.
If animals do have rights, then the case for eating and experimenting upon them, especially when other alternatives are available, is going to have to be that much stronger; and those who engage in and support these practices are going to be increasingly beleaguered.
The animalrights 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.
Good leftist that he is, Peter Singer doesn't let a crisis go to waste. Addendum: The argument seems to be as follows: It is inconsistent both (a) to eat meat and (b) to condemn (or mourn) the killing of Harambe; I condemn (or mourn) the killing of Harambe; therefore, I may no longer eat meat. Here are some objections: The first premise is false.
I support the goal of legal rights for nonhuman animals, but this approach is wrongheaded. Instead of using the 13th Amendment, the original understanding of which did not include animals, proponents should work for a constitutional amendment, or simply for national legislation. Take it to the people.
I got a nice surprise in the mail today: a complimentary copy of this , which contains my 1998 essay "Doing Right by Our Animal Companions." Expensive, eh?
Even if such beings cannot be possessors of rights it might still be wrong to kill them, but the case against killing those who endure pain is obviously easier to set out if they can be shown to be capable of possessing rights and in fact possess rights.
For the record, I am opposed to violence in behalf of animals. I can't think of anything that does more harm to the cause of animal liberation. In the long run, the best thing we can do for animals is engage in rational persuasion. I leave you this fine evening with a column by Debra Saunders.
I believe that this view of the moral status of animals is radically mistaken, not because its distinguished proponents are somehow misinformed about the facts or insensitive in their attitudes, but rather because they misunderstand the basic terms of their own moral vocabulary even as applied to human beings.
Forty years ago, the suggestion that nonhuman animals have moral rights—indeed, many of the same rights as human beings—would have been met with incredulous stares, if not outright ridicule. Fast forward to the present.
Mylan Engel Jr and Kathie Jenni are the authors of this book. Mylan is a longtime contributor to this blog. We met in graduate school at the University of Arizona in 1983.
The volume „Tierrechte – eine interdisziplinäre Herausforderung“ (literally „AnimalRights – an interdisciplinary challenge“ has just been released from Harald Fischer Verlag (publisher), Germany. We would be pleased if you would support us by announcing the book in your Blog (Newsletters, Website etc.). We really appreciate it!
Hi Keith, Here are some links to some exceptionally moving and informative online audio lectures on vegetarianism & animalethics from a Christian perspective. They are by Matt Halteman , an excellent philosopher from Calvin College. I bet all your readers—religious and secular—would learn a lot from these talks and be inspired.
Here is a website that contains much useful information about animalethics. It appears to be organized around Regan's book Empty Cages: Facing the Challenge of AnimalRights. I'm not sure what relation it bears to Tom Regan, the philosopher from North Carolina State University.
Hi Keith, I've created an animalrights slide show for use in my own class and figure there might be someone out there who would want to use/watch/whatever. There's a link and description here , if you'd be willing to post at AnimalEthics. Thanks, Jean Kazez
First of all, I want to tell you how much I enjoy AnimalEthics. It’s a job-matching site for all jobs related to animals, like training, grooming, veterinary medicine, caretaking, zoo positions, and much, much more. What makes the site special is that a portion of every sale is donated to animalrights and rescue organizations.
As regards animals, the position is clear. If an animal has the relevant moral capacities, actually or potentially, then it can be a possessor of rights.
One aspect of the question of whether animals have rights may now be treated. If animals have rights, then these are welfare rather than option-rights. My pet turtle does not exercise, at his option, any rights over itself, things, or people.
Yesterday, the world lost its most powerful voice for animalrights, Tom Regan. No one has done more to explain what "animalrights" means and why animals have rights than Tom Regan. CAF’s grants help make possible the next generation of animalrights scholarship and artistry.
Hi Keith, My name is Evelyn and I'm a big fan of AnimalEthics, reading it regularly, I enjoy your posts and share your love for animals. I'm writing a blog about animalrights and have linked back to you here.
Hi Keith, You may be interested in a new post on Ethics Soup regarding rights of farm animals. Ethics Soup is a fairly new blog and I'm looking for ways to drive traffic to the blog to gain some readers. If you find this post informative, would you consider providing a link to it?
If we apply the criterion of duty, the question of whether animals have rights can be readily answered: we have merely to ask whether, in considering an action affecting an animal, we could assent to such an action after abstracting from numerical determination.
So far McCloskey is on solid ground, but one can quarrel with his denial that any animals but humans have interests. I should think that the trustee of funds willed to a dog or cat is more than a mere custodian of the animal he protects. The animal itself is the beneficiary of his dutiful services.
Nor is it true that the worth of an animal''s life, any more than of a man''s, can be measured simply by the amount of "agreeable sensation," a fallacy often put forward by those who cage animals in menageries, on the plea that they are there well tended and saved from the struggle for existence.
I will conclude with some remarks about the rights of animals. When it is asked whether animals have rights, and whether human beings have duties to them, the question, I think, is partly moral and partly verbal. Let us consider the moral question first.
A general discussion of right or duty would hardly be complete without some discussion, even if only a brief one, of the closely related subject of rights. It is commonly said that rights and duties are correlative, and it is worth while to inquire whether and, if at all, in what sense this is true.
In his book Rattling the Cage , Wise persuasively argued that justice entitles chimpanzees and bonobos to legal personhood and to the fundamental legal rights of bodily integrity and bodily liberty. Wise taught AnimalRights Law at Harvard Law School, Vermont Law School, John Marshall Law School, and Lewis & Clark Law School.
Currently, I am very interested in social and political philosophy and ethical issues. I felt a strong sense of connection to the ideas of Peter Singer while taking Ethics from Keith. I believe it will be interesting to see if these characteristics about me change, and how they change, in exploring AnimalRights issues more.
There is no inconsistency in rejecting plant rights while accepting animalrights. If Smith thinks that plant rights and animalrights stand or fall together, then he is confused, for there is a morally relevant difference between plants and animals, namely, that only the latter are sentient.
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 animalrights movement.
Animalrights is neither progressive nor conservative. Many conservatives care about animals as well as human beings. Why animalrights is considered a progressive cause is mind-boggling. By the way, the editorial board of the New York Times is progressive (as opposed to conservative).
Here is a common argument in favor of animalrights: 1. If babies have rights, then animals have rights. Babies have rights. Animals have rights. Frey, "AnimalRights," Analysis 37 [June 1977]: 186-9.) Therefore, 3. In 1977, philosopher R. What is Frey's argument?
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 30+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content