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 know on some level, I think that’s something almost all of us can get behind…no one, except the most callous and cold-hearted of the human race things its fine to torture animals, or deny that they are capable of pain and suffering. For example, when the U.S. This makes perfect sense. The logic of this is ridiculous.
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). Quakers, for example, were the early abolitionists in the US. Just look at the pro-life movement.
By way of an example take the Western Gulls that I studied on the Farallon Islands in California. Worse still, there will be situations where the two forces come into direct opposition, where the goals of animalrights clash outright with those of wildlife conservation. This is a very serious business here in New Zealand.
So, while this fact does not need to concern us, if we are thinking about ethical principles, for example based on rational arguments leading to deontological ethics, that changes when we are talking about how to move society towards this ethical ideal. In contrast, abstract-rational entities, like personhood or rights, are not.
Here's a hint from the authors: In the end, it's not the grammarians and usage experts who decide what's right. In the eighteenth century, for example, grammarians tried to stamp out the use of "wrote" as the past tense of "write." The animalrightsmovement, such as it is, is experiencing somewhat of a crisis of usage.
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 animalrightsmovement.
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