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
I came across this 2005 book from the Society & Animals Journal titled Confronting Cruelty Moral Orthodoxy and the Challenge of the AnimalRightsMovement. Readership: This book will be of interest to anyone who wishes to understand the animalrightsmovement in England, the United States and Australia.
I'm reading a book about women in the American abolitionist movement. There are a lot of similarities between that movement and today's animalrightsmovement (such as it is.but that's another post). The drive to emancipate slaves was grounded on religious and moral grounds.
“The bottom line is that there are many reasons why human-animal interactions are so often inconsistent and paradoxical. Much of the book deals with topics vegans have likely pondered, likely frequently. He watched cockfighting and killed and skinned animals, but won’t eat veal. Yes, you read that right.)
At least fifty-nine grammar books of the period pounced on "wrote," calling the usage "absurd," "bad," a "barbarism," "colloquial," "corrupt," "improper," "inelegant," "ungrammatical," a "solecism," or "vulgar." The animalrightsmovement, such as it is, is experiencing somewhat of a crisis of usage.
It is simply projustice, insisting only that the scope of justice be seen to include respect for the rights of animals. The animalrightsmovement 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.
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. Addendum: Smith appears not to understand the animal-rightsmovement.
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