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
In " 'AnimalRights:' Pernicious Nonsense for Both Law & Public Policy ," Massachusetts attorney and "sportsman" Richard Latimer is on the mark with some concepts, and way off with others. Now, I know you're saying: That's not what animalrights is. For an attorney, that's awfully weak.
The animalrights movement, such as it is, is experiencing somewhat of a crisis of usage. I feel for the purist also with regard to the terms "animalrights" and "abolition." I have a definition of animalrights and for abolition that makes me an animalrights activist and an abolitionist.
The Coalition to Ban Horse-Drawn Carriages calls itself "an animalrights-protection-abolitionist organization," which I find interesting. The well being of the horses should be the ideal of every organization whose mandate is to put animal protection ideals first - especially when they ask for donations based on that mandate.
Although lip service was paid to the fact that lions are endangered and a lion was poached, the language of anger was the language of animalsrights. The killing of Cecil was equated with murder, a moral crime rather than a symptom of a ecological problem. This is of course an anathema for many in the animalrights camp.
The way I see it, there are three camps on this one: People who think that dolphins or Great Apes or chimps could function as a gateway to other animals getting rights. You could be for or against animalrights and believe the gateway theory. Of course, the size of a brain isn't what's important.
There are a lot of similarities between that movement and today's animalrights movement (such as it is.but that's another post). The drive to emancipate slaves was grounded on religious and moral grounds. Where is that religious outrage over the treatment of animals? Just look at the pro-life movement.
I came across this 2005 book from the Society & Animals Journal titled Confronting Cruelty Moral Orthodoxy and the Challenge of the AnimalRights Movement. Readership: This book will be of interest to anyone who wishes to understand the animalrights movement in England, the United States and Australia.
Hal Herzog’s “ Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat ” (Harper 2011), though fascinating, is ultimately depressing for vegans and animalrights activists. Over at AnimalRights and AntiOppression , we’ve been discussing tactics and sharing our thoughts and experiences about what works and doesn’t work when it comes to advocacy.
We want to take a building that has been a flashpoint for conflict on one moral issue and turn it into a place of dialogue on another one," said Bruce Friedrich, vice president for policy at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. PETA wants to buy the clinic owned by slain Dr. Tiller. "We
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.
The next argument is usually something along the lines of: But animals in the wild might starve to death, and get injured, maimed or killed by predators! Finally, people who object to our moral stance jump species and say we should object to the lion killing the gazelle. Yes, that's true. Besides, we have choices.
One complaint many of us have with "liberals" and "progressives" is that they tend to leave veganism and animalrights out of their sphere of concern. The Morality Of Food (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com). Related articles by Zemanta Doctors endorse vegan and vegetarian diets for healthy pregnancies (scienceblog.com).
I not only learned about Harvey Milk, but about the early stages of the gay rights movement (which is ongoing today when one looks at all the right-wing flutterings over gay marriage.) It made me think though about the animalrights movement. Are we really a social movement like gay rights and civil rights?
I don't expect that many readers will be converted to the cause of animalrights by reading this book. Nor have I dealt with advances in the legal protection of animals both in practice and in theory. I have focused exclusively on moral theory. Nevertheless, I believe that a good theoretical argument is worth the effort.
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. (
But now the blinders are coming off, and it is time Leftists take their own off and wake up to the fact of the ethological revolution and its profound implications for human identity, our moral relationships to nonhuman animals, and to politics. Humanized' mice speak volumes (scienceblog.com).
For an explanation of this feature, click on “Moral Vegetarianism” at the bottom of this post. The Argument from AnimalRights A stronger argument is made by people who maintain that animals have rights. In particular, it has been argued that animals have a right to life.
It is simply projustice, insisting only that the scope of justice be seen to include respect for the rights of animals. 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.
But the ease with which we can tell our stories and post our videos must not render us incapable of moral judgment and decency. It may be for the courts to decide whether cruelty to animals can pass off as free speech, but we must also rethink these important ideas as a culture. They certainly depict cruelty to animals, right?
Citing abilities such as nonhuman great apes' ability to learn human languages suggest that animalrights advocates seek nonhuman participation in human society. We're not asking that any nonhumans have freedom of speech or voting rights. Tags: Books Ethics Language animalrights Joan Dunayer speciesism.
Forty years ago, the suggestion that nonhuman animals have moralrights—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.
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.
If I can show you that one of your moral principles entails that it's wrong to eat meat, then, to avoid contradiction, you must either abandon the principle or abstain from meat. Philosophers are trained to do this. Their only tool is the law of noncontradiction, which says that no proposition can be both true and false.
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. (H.
Because I've been thinking about the evolution of my own thinking--and languaging--regarding animalrights. Both animalrights groups and animal welfare groups use "compassion" frequently. Then again, so do people who kill animals for a living. No matter how they are treated, is it right to use them?
I'm not saying give up on "animalrights," either. I'm not talking about morality here, I'm talking about language. I'm not talking about morality here, I'm talking about language. And the real question is, is there thought--or is there morality-without language?
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.
I have little to say about rights because rights are not important to my argument. My basic moral position (as my emphasis on pleasure and pain and my quoting Bentham might have led Fox to suspect) is utilitarian. Peter Singer, " The Fable of the Fox and the Unliberated Animals ," Ethics 88 [January 1978]: 119-25, at 122)
Let's deconstruct: The interview reminds me of how the industry views us and how little they know about the community of people who care about the lives of the animals brought into this world for one reason only: to kill and eat them. Perhaps it is the industry's inability to evolve morally that is behind the times.
For an explanation of this feature, click on “Moral Vegetarianism” at the bottom of this post. The Argument from Human Grain Shortage All of the clearly moral arguments for vegetarianism given so far have been in terms of animalrights and suffering. Tags: Moral Vegetarianism. KBJ: I’m speechless.
I assumed that Hume was right in thinking that ultimately morality depends on how we feel about things. Many prominent animal-rights advocates (such as Tom Regan ) are deontologists rather than consequentialists. I described the feelings to which I wished to appeal as "generalized benevolence."
They don't have collars made from animals. But they also haven't made a moral choice to not use animals. animals in research, in schools or as food). And they concentrate on the health aspects of removing animals from your diet. My dogs eat vegan dog food.
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. Even congenital idiots look like men.
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. Henry S.
This arises from the fact that we have duties to animals and to infants. We had better therefore take the less complicated case of animals, which we commonly suppose not to be even potential moral agents. It may of course be denied that we have duties to animals. It is not at all clear which is the true view.
But it seems to me, nevertheless, that in general, animals are among the sorts of beings of whom rights can meaningfully be predicated and denied. We must now ask ourselves for whose sake ought we to treat (some) animals with consideration and humaneness? Joel Feinberg , "The Rights of Animals and Unborn Generations," chap.
It would remain true, of course, that the vegetarian diet is more limited, since every pleasure available to the vegetarian is also available to the carnivore (not counting the moral satisfactions involved, of course—which would be question-begging), plus more which are not available to the vegetarian so long as he remains one.
The idea is to cultivate discussion in the forum in order to better suit visitors needing help from people like you on going vegan or understanding animalrights. The good ones eat only animals, which apparently isn't a big deal. The good ones are morally superior to the bad ones because they don't eat humans.
They have no moral justification for taking the lives of the nonhumans other than that certain humans like the taste of their flesh but don't want to do the killing themselves. It's absurd that this has to be said, but respecting the needs of cows is the same thing as respecting the needs of dogs. It involves not killing them.
Then again, he is not against the consumption of animals, " in general " (198). There's not enough evidence for an accusation of moral relativism, but for me the message is a mixed one. And what follows, as you might imagine, is his support of "ethical meat" (for those who insist on eating animals).
Accordingly, we oppose the use of devices such as electric prods, sharpened sticks, spurs, flank straps, and other rodeo equipment that cause animals to react violently, and we oppose bull riding, bronco riding, steer roping, calf roping, "wild horse racing," chuck wagon racing, steer tailing, and horse tripping. Societies evolve morally.
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.
I've been out of every loop I used to be in because my work outside of veganism and animalrights came a-calling in a most critical way. It's even more offensive than the condescension of believers, who are praying for poor me and my pointless life sans morality.
The initial attractiveness of utilitarianism as a moral theory on which to rest the call for the better treatment of animals was noted in an earlier context. Because animals are sentient (i.e., Because animals are sentient (i.e.,
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