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.
Here's a hint from the authors: In the end, it's not the grammarians and usage experts who decide what's right. 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." So who's right?
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. Would you actually actively campaign against rights for some species?
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'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.
Disappointing results from Gallup's annual "moral acceptability" measure. The article also shows results on non-animal issues as well. Tags: ethics animalrights us. Not surprisingly, Republicans tend to take more conservative stances than Democrats.
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.
Last night, I watched "Milk," the film about assassinated gay rights activist Harvey Milk. 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.) Animals can't do that.
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.
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).
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. (
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. Check out the rest and let me know what you think. Why can we talk?
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.
Meanwhile, "new speciesism" is the notion that within a paradigm where rights are included for nonhuman animals, some are more deserving of rights than others for any of a variety of reasons (e.g., We're not asking that any nonhumans have freedom of speech or voting rights. Instead, it is the campaign to modify it.
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?
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. Hominum causa omne ius constitutum.)
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 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. Perhaps Smart was still thinking (in 1980) of Kant versus Bentham, rationality versus sentience.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.,
That Kant should hold such a view should not be surprising; it is a direct consequence of his moral theory, the main outlines of which may be briefly, albeit crudely, summarized. As such, no moral agent is ever to be treated merely as a means. Moral agents are not nonrational, do not have "only a relative value," and are not things.
All that the rights view prohibits is science that violates individual rights. There are also some things we cannot learn by using humans, if we respect their rights. The rights view merely requires moral consistency in this regard. ( If that means that there are some things we cannot learn, then so be it.
Here are three paragraphs from a recent essay by Roger Scruton : As I suggested, science provides authority for this weird morality only when clothed in moral doctrine. The sleight of hand that gave us the “selfish” gene gives us the rights of baboons. And that explains, in part, the appeal of the animal-rights movement.
The volume „Tierrechte – eine interdisziplinäre Herausforderung“ (literally „AnimalRights – an interdisciplinary challenge“ has just been released from Harald Fischer Verlag (publisher), Germany. The results of the lectures are written down in this book. More information on the book can be found here. We really appreciate it!
There are intractable practical differences between environmental ethics and the animal liberation movement. Very different moral obligations follow in respect, most importantly, to domestic animals, the principal beneficiaries of the humane ethic.
My original interest was narrow: animalrights. That book exposed me to natural history (Aldo Leopold, Henry Beston, and Stephen Gould), wilderness (Roderick Nash), and moral philosophy (John Rodman and Peter Singer).
First of all, I want to tell you how much I enjoy Animal Ethics. I especially liked your posting from Gardner Williams’ “The Moral Insignificance of the Total of All Value.” It’s a job-matching site for all jobs related to animals, like training, grooming, veterinary medicine, caretaking, zoo positions, and much, much more.
Currently, I do not believe that killing an animal is prima facie morally wrong. I simply believe that when animals are killed it ought to be for a good purpose, and in a manner that is respectful to their capacity to suffer. I do not believe that the current factory farm system in place lives up to both of those standards.
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