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
Why is it surprising that I have little to say about the nature of rights? It would only be surprising to one who assumes that my case for animal liberation is based upon rights and, in particular, upon the idea of extending rights to animals. But this is not my position at all.
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.
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. Nonhuman animals can suffer. Dentists make people suffer.)
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 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?
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.
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. Other results from this Gallup poll can be found here. Note from KBJ: This post is by Mylan Engel.
First of all, I want to tell you how much I enjoy AnimalEthics. What makes the site special is that a portion of every sale is donated to animalrights and rescue organizations. If the majority of your blog readers are animal lovers like me, then I know they’d love my site. I read it all the time.
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. a nonhuman animal) the sort of being that can have rights?
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, 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?
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, 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
The issue as to who or what may be a possessor of rights is not simply a matter of academic, conceptual interest. If, for instance, it is determined that gravely mentally defective human beings and monsters born of human parents are not the kinds of beings who may possess rights, this bears on how we may treat them.
The question of whether animals possess rights is once again topical, largely as a result of the recent surge of interest in animal welfare and in the moral pros and cons of eating animals and using them in scientific research. Arguments to show that animals do have rights, therefore, are at a premium. (
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.
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. It may for this reason be morally appropriate for us meanwhile to act towards the former animals as if they are possessors of rights.
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) I hope that this book will help this cause along.
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.
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.
We can, of course, with consistency treat animals as mere pests and deny that they have any rights; for most animals, especially those of the lower orders, we have no choice but to do so. We must now ask ourselves for whose sake ought we to treat (some) animals with consideration and humaneness?
In 1792, Englishman Thomas Taylor (1758-1835), a prominent translator of Plato and other Greek philosophers, published a satirical pamphlet entitled A Vindication of the Rights of Brutes. If women have rights, then animals have rights. Animals do not have rights. Animals do not have rights.
It may also now be time for humanity to consider that its responsibilities go beyond humankind and extend to other beings as well—to animals and even to plants. What is the basis of the assumption that I have the right to cut down trees that were growing before I was born? It is might, sheer might and might alone.
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.
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. It is this latter view, I believe, that is in the minds of some of those who deny that animals have rights.
For every person, being a subject of interests, has rights, i.e., has a claim to respect of his interests under the law of equality of persons. Under the moral law, all beings who have interests are subjects of rights, while all those who in addition to having interests, are capable of grasping the demands of duty, are subjects of duties.
The legal rights of nonhuman animals might first be achieved in any of three ways. For example, the Treaty of Amsterdam that came into force on May 1, 1999, formally acknowledged that nonhuman animals are “sentient beings” and not merely goods or agricultural products. Wise , “ The Evolution of Animal Law Since 1950 ,” chap.
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.
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.
Eat right. What counts as eating right? Eat right—I will eat a diet low in fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and sodium, and high in complex carbohydrates and fiber; and I will limit my consumption of empty calories like those found in sweets, soda pop, and trendy high-calorie coffee drinks. Lose weight. Quit smoking.
According to a great many philosophers and jurisprudents, animals do not have rights for the simple reason that they are not the kinds of beings who can have rights. In respect to having rights, animals are more like pebbles and sunbeams than they are like full-fledged human beings.
Eat right. What counts as eating right? Eat right—I will eat a diet low in fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and sodium, and high in complex carbohydrates and fiber; and I will limit my consumption of empty calories like those found in sweets, soda pop, and trendy high-calorie coffee drinks and energy drinks. Lose weight.
Moral goodness is quite distinct from and independent of rightness, which (as we have seen) belongs to acts not in virtue of the motives they proceed from, but in virtue of the nature of what is done. Thus a morally good action need not be the doing of a right act, and the doing of a right act need not be a morally good action.
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