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
This is human chauvinism. The anthropomorphic side reads: "It is anthropomorphic to attribute characteristics to nonhumans that belong only to humans." The human chauvinism side reads: "It is chauvinistic not to attribute characteristics to those nonhumans who have them and to persist in the conceit that only humans do."
Although the farmers can easily answer that their animals are treated more humanely whilst alive, their discomfort about being asked questions regarding the slaughter process is visually and audibly obvious. This film provides an accurate portrayal of small-scale, non-intensive animal farming.
Since a number of "AnimalEthics" readers reside in the northern Illinois area, I thought I would call your attention to an exciting lecture that is taking place on Northern Illinois University's campus. She specializes in Environmental Ethics, Human-AnimalEthics, and Moral Psychology. Jenni, Ph.D.
More barbarous, or less barbarous, such slaughtering may undoubtedly be, according to the methods employed, but the "humane" slaughtering, so much bepraised of the sophist, is an impossibility in fact and a contradiction in terms. Henry S.
On the blog AnimalEthics (which I visited because of your reference to it) is the sentence "Let us temporarily assume for the sake of argument that it would be permissible to eat the flesh of an animal who was raised humanely and killed entirely painlessly." Did you notice that "who" the writer slipped in there?
So if human beings are ends in themselves, why not animals, since they too have feelings and goals that they value? Rollin , "Reasonable Partiality and AnimalEthics," Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 8 [April 2005]: 105-21, at 117)
Here is a crisp (but badly edited) essay by philosopher Nathan Nobis. I like Nathan's distinction between "Oh yeah?" and "So what!" as replies to an argument. Suppose you claim that proposition C follows, logically, from propositions P1 and P2. There are two mistakes you can be making. First, one or more of your premises may be false.
It was, I suggest, to a large extent because he felt that the noblest feature of humanity is the capacity to be self-governing, to adopt principles without being influenced by sensuous motives and then to live by them whatever the contingencies. For Kant, then, worthy acts are (given human fallibility) a proper subset of right acts.
I think that the only right I ever attribute to animals is the "right" to equal consideration of interests, and anything that is expressed by talking of such a right could equally well be expressed by the assertion that animals' interests ought to be given equal consideration with the like interests of humans.
," Andrew Revkin explores the brave new world of growing meat cultures in vitro as a more humane and possibly more environmentally friendly way of producing meat. In his post, Revkin cites Jesse Ausubel, Director of the Program for the Human Environment at Rockefeller University. metric tons per year?
How many of you think this experiment is justified? If you think it's justified, would it be justified if the experimental subjects were orphaned children?
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 think this is a very powerful moral argument that is compelling to anyone who gives animals moral consideration.
Global warming is an animalethics issue. As the planet warms, fragile habitats that countless animal species depend on for survival will be destroyed. They conclude: Our results suggest that future anthropogenic [human-generated] emissions would need to be eliminated in order to stabilize global-mean temperatures.
Yesterday, the world lost its most powerful voice for animal rights, Tom Regan. No one has done more to explain what "animal rights" means and why animals have rights than Tom Regan.
From the ecological point of view, for human beings universally to become vegetarians is tantamount to a shift of trophic niche from omnivore with carnivorous preferences to herbivore. The human population would probably, as past trends overwhelmingly suggest, expand in accordance with the potential thus afforded.
"There is no longer dispute among serious scientists that humans aren’t the only animals who have the capacity to suffer physically and mentally. Elephants, great apes, orcas, dogs, cats, and many other animals can experience depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, and compulsive disorders.
Madoff to criticize Leona Helmsley’s charitable giving by saying her fortune “is going to the dogs,” but those of us who give to the Humane Society of the United States and other animal-rescue organizations feel otherwise. July 9, 2008 Note from KBJ: All of my donations go to animal-welfare organizations.
I can't be sure, since the editorial opinion is so jumbled, but the board seems to be arguing that people should continue to eat meat, provided the animals whose flesh they consume are not made to suffer. Would the board say the same thing about humans?
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Catholic catechism affirm that compassion for animals is a matter of human dignity. The United Methodist Church supports the humane treatment of farm animals and calls for the protection of endangered species.
Wild animals and native plants have a particular place in nature, according to the land ethic, which domestic animals (because they are products of human art and represent an extended presence of human beings in the natural world) do not have. as is the humaneethic.
Notice that the author is not opposed to the use of nonhuman animals as resources for human consumption. Notice that we (including, I assume, the author) would never allow such treatment of a human being. Are the lives of nonhuman animals less important, to them, than your life is to you? I can't imagine what it is.
I was also intrigued to read that “in previous studies, researchers showed that humans who had been paralyzed for years could learn to control a cursor on a computer screen with their brain waves.” So why were the monkeys used?
Common-sense, rational reforms reflect the emerging consensus of mainstream animal protection groups like the Humane Society of the United States and millions of Americans who care about animals. Our findings follow many other studies demonstrating mental anguish in traumatized animals.
Animal abusers are cowards who take their issues out on “easy victims”—and their targets often include their fellow humans. I cannot begin to say how many incidents I’ve seen involving animal abusers who commit violent acts against humans, and animal neglecters who have also neglected their children or other human dependents.
The degree of restriction placed on human behavior, furthermore, is relatively slight. Whereas it once used to be argued, as by Newman , that the least human good compensates for any possible amount of animal suffering, the current doctrine is that it requires a considerable good to compensate for such suffering.
Should we legalize dog meat for human consumption? For a discussion of the issue, see William Saletan’s recent post at the Human Nature Blog. Saletan discusses some reader reactions to his first post on legalizing dog meat here. What's next? Soylent green? What do you think? Should we be eating dog meat?
Philosophers have shown that the standard reasons offered to exclude animals from the moral circle, and to justify not assessing our treatment of them by the same moral categories and machinery we use for assessing the treatment of humans, do not meet the test of moral relevance. Bernard E.
In the first case, there is no way around the suggestion, which many people appear to believe, that animal experience is so lacking in intensity that the pains of animals are overridden by the pleasures experienced by human beings. Devine seems to think that if humans cease eating meat, they will derive no pleasure from eating.
To the Editor: Re “ A Disgraceful Farm Bill ” (editorial, May 16): While the farm bill recently approved by Congress deals with enormous agricultural policy issues, it also includes three important provisions to protect animal welfare. These new penalties would give the law some much needed teeth.
I do not know that it can be better done than in the words of George Nicholson, one of those early pioneers to the influence of whose writings, though now almost forgotten, the cause of humaneness owes so much. "In Henry S.
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. It is this latter view, I believe, that is in the minds of some of those who deny that animals have rights. Let us consider the moral question first.
To the Editor: It’s mind-boggling that in spite of overwhelming evidence that the consumption of animal products is directly responsible for a host of human diseases , greenhouse gas production and indescribable animal suffering, the general public continues to satiate its taste buds and support factory farming.
A few years ago, philosopher David Oderberg published an essay entitled " The Illusion of Animal Rights " in The Human Life Review. A few months ago, having belatedly discovered Oderberg's essay, I wrote a critique entitled " Oderberg on Animal Rights ," which I duly submitted to The Human Life Review for publication.
There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape. Human activities are producing part of the rise in CO 2 in the atmosphere.
citizens have been struggling to bring an end to the inhumane practice of slaughtering horses for human consumption. For previous posts on the ethical issues surrounding the slaughtering of horses for human consumption, see here , here , and here. For several years, conscientious U.S. Happily, that struggle is finally over.
It might be argued that any decrease in suffering for farmed animals is good, morally speaking. Indeed, doesn't it entrench the idea that they are resources for human use? Imagine arguing not that human chattel slavery ought to be abolished, but that it ought to be reformed so as to inflict less suffering on the slaves.
What the utilitarian who defends human carnivorousness must say, then, is something like this: that the amount of pleasure which humans derive per pound of animal flesh exceeds the amount of discomfort and pain per pound which are inflicted on the animals in the process, all things taken into account. Is this plausible?
Ross, The Right and the Good [Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1988], 137 [first published in 1930]) Note from KBJ: Since the concepts of desert and good or bad disposition do not apply to animals (who are not moral agents), their pleasure is intrinsically good and their pain intrinsically bad.
on the principle that animals are morally equivalent to humans." Vegetarianism is based on the principle that animals matter, morally. It says nothing about whether animals are "morally equivalent" to humans (whatever that means). This man argues that vegetarianism is immoral. Why is it immoral?
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