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
An updated resource from the American Association of Veterinary Medical Colleges (AAVMC) is intended to further contribute to progress in the teaching of anatomy at veterinary colleges by promoting effective animal alternatives, supporting animal welfare and animalethics, and the safety of veterinary students and the animals with which they learn. (..)
Thanks to Patty at Animal Rights-Do Whatever is Necessary for reposting this list of 40 ways to help lab animals. There are many excellent books on issues related to animal research. Know Your Adversary Part of being an effective activist on animal research issues is knowing the arguments in support of animal research.
Joining us will be Animal Person , Creature Talk , and AnimalEthics. Starting tomorrow, Critter News content will be featured on AnimalRightsZone.com. Note - we'll still be here. But, some of our posts will show up on the new site as well. So, I hope you'll time to check out the site and check out some of the other bloggers.
Jordaan allegedly submitted a research application to the University of the Free State, but its animalethics committee rejected it. Kotze said Jordaan had apparently doing "stem cell research" to help people walk again after a friend of his had been paralysed in an accident. He was told to rewrite and resubmit it.
Surely any sentient or conscious being has states that matter to it in a positive or negative way—pleasure matters to an animal in a positive way, pain or fear in a negative way. So if human beings are ends in themselves, why not animals, since they too have feelings and goals that they value?
According to the Guardian , the new pope (Jorge Mario Bergoglio) took his name from Saint Francis of Assisi (depicted above), who is the patron saint of animals. billion adherents, to drive home the point that animals are not resources for human use but fellow denizens of the planet, with lives, a good, and a dignity of their own.
Dear Professor Burgess-Jackson, I'm a great admirer of your animalethics blog, which I've found to be an invaluable resource. I just wanted to share a link to Gary Francione's recent philosophy bites podcast.
I'm a longtime proponent of animal rights, but this suit is ridiculous. Applying it to nonhuman animals is a stretch. Nonhuman animals can suffer. If nonhuman animals are to be granted legal rights, it will be through legislation or common-law adjudication, not constitutional adjudication.
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.
In this New York Times op-ed column , Frank Bruni predicts that our understanding of and concern for animals is only going to grow as scientific advances help us to understand the rich psychological and emotional lives of animals.
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.
Moral philosophers, even those belonging to the Critical School [the followers of Kant and Fries], have often represented duties to animals as indirect duties to oneself or to other men. For instance, maltreatment of animals is forbidden on the ground that it encourages cruelty, that is, a disposition that obstructs fulfillment of duty.
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.
The problem of the unjust use of farm animals is large, growing, historical, institutionalized, governmentally encouraged, and fundamentally unregulated at either the state or federal level. Farm animals are treated essentially as raw materials. Instead it aids industry boards that exist solely to sell animal products.
With regard to wild animals, the general policy recommended by the rights view is: let them be! Tom Regan , The Case for Animal Rights , updated with a new preface [Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2004], 361 [italics in original] [first edition published in 1983]) Too little is not enough. (
That individuals can be harmed without knowing it has important implications for the proper assessment of the treatment of animals. Modern farms (so-called factory farms), for example, raise animals in unnatural conditions. Those animals who are raised intensively, then, let us assume, do not know what they're missing.
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.
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.
Philosophers have shown that the standard reasons offered to exclude animals from the moral circle, and to justify not assessing our treatment of them by the same moral categories and machinery we use for assessing the treatment of humans, do not meet the test of moral relevance. 41 in A Companion to Bioethics , 2d ed.,
It is well written and interesting, and might even change your mind about the moral status of animals. The whole dimension of morality doesn’t apply to him, or scarcely applies to him.
[I]t is not quite clear whether we owe benevolence to men alone, or to other animals also. Intuitional moralists of repute have maintained this latter view: I think, however, that Common Sense is disposed to regard this as a hard-hearted paradox, and to hold with Bentham that the pain of animals is per se to be avoided.
[T]here is another class of cases where the state is accorded the right to interfere with the individual when he is not interfering with any other person, namely, where cruelty to animals is involved. who cannot protect their interests. who cannot protect their interests.
Yesterday, the world lost its most powerful voice for animal rights, Tom Regan. No one has done more to explain what "animal rights" means and why animals have rights than Tom Regan. As Regan expressed so simply and straightforwardly, what animal rights advocates want is for "people to stop doing terrible things to animals."
Unlike [John] Rawls, whose considered views on our duties regarding animals are unclear at best, [Immanuel] Kant provides us with an explicit statement of an indirect duty view. Moral agents are not nonrational, do not have "only a relative value," and are not things. Moral agents (rational beings) are ends in themselves. (
"There is no longer dispute among serious scientists that humans aren’t the only animals who have the capacity to suffer physically and mentally. Elephants, great apes, orcas, dogs, cats, and many other animals can experience depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, and compulsive disorders.
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.
Tom Regan , The Case for Animal Rights , updated with a new preface [Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2004], 388 [first edition published in 1983]) 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. (
Here is a crisp (but badly edited) essay by philosopher Nathan Nobis. I like Nathan's distinction between "Oh yeah?" and "So what!" as replies to an argument. Suppose you claim that proposition C follows, logically, from propositions P1 and P2. There are two mistakes you can be making. First, one or more of your premises may be false.
Mylan Engel Jr and Kathie Jenni are the authors of this book. Mylan is a longtime contributor to this blog. We met in graduate school at the University of Arizona in 1983.
We have next to consider who the "all'' are, whose happiness is to be taken into account. Are we to extend our concern to all the beings capable of pleasure and pain whose feelings are affected by our conduct? or are we to confine our view to human happiness?
To the Editor: Re “ Animal Abuse as Clue to Additional Cruelties ” (news article, March 18): As someone who deals with dozens of cruelty-to-animals cases every week, I applaud states that are imposing stricter penalties on people who hurt animals and that are working to establish online registries of animal abusers.
To the Editor: Once again people associated with the animal rights group PETA ( letter , June 19) have tried to disparage the commitment circuses have for animal care and conservation. and Barnum & Bailey are dedicated to providing the very best of care for all our animals, especially the Asian elephant.
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., To secure the philosophical foundation for animal rights requires abandoning utilitarianism. (
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