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 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?
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.
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.
Bea directed me to an interview with Dr. Elizabeth Parker , the "chair man " (my emphasis) of the Animal Agriculture Alliance at CattleNetwork, which apparently is "The Source for Cattle News." If any "drastic measures" are employed, they are to remove animals from suffering, not to impose our dietary choices on others.
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.
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.
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?
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 don't expect that many readers will be converted to the cause of animalrights by reading this book. If they are to be swayed, the change is likely to come from witnessing the realities of the fate endured by animals. Nor have I dealt with advances in the legal protection of animals both in practice and in theory.
But " Minding the Animals: Ethology and the Obsolescence of Left Humanism " is a great look back at how we humans have managed to always find a way to consider ourselves unique, despite what the reality of the nonhuman world tells us. Having misled us for so long about animals, science is initiating a revolution in our understanding.
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. (
For the record, I am opposed to violence in behalf of animals. I can't think of anything that does more harm to the cause of animal liberation. In the long run, the best thing we can do for animals is engage in rational persuasion. You might wonder how this could work. Philosophers are trained to do this.
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.
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.
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. After all, they "love" the animals they kill.
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. I have little to say about rights because rights are not important to my argument. But this is not my position at all.
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.
Kelly wondered whether the term "vegan" is " worth fighting for " given the latest trend of seemingly oxymoronish (waiting for that one to hit Webster's) terminology from the mouths of people who want to find a way to use animals, yet make it appear that they're not. Before 6pm, he doesn't eat animals. And they're all pretty obvious.
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.
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've signed up).
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.
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.)
So far McCloskey is on solid ground, but one can quarrel with his denial that any animals but humans have interests. I should think that the trustee of funds willed to a dog or cat is more than a mere custodian of the animal he protects. The animal itself is the beneficiary of his dutiful services.
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."
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.
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. Professor D.
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. say the one thing she'd tell everyone to do to get healthy would be to stop eating animal products. The good ones eat only animals, which apparently isn't a big deal.
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. And it doesn't seem to matter as there is a cadre of new bloggers and writers, including several who analyze the mainstream news as it relates to animals and also religion.
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.
What the utilitarian who defends human carnivorousness must say, then, is something like this: that the amount of pleasure which humans derive per pound of animal flesh exceeds the amount of discomfort and pain per pound which are inflicted on the animals in the process, all things taken into account. Is this plausible?
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. 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.
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. ( Tom Regan , The Case for AnimalRights , updated with a new preface [Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2004], 388 [first edition published in 1983])
A column entitled "Ag Industry Threatened by AnimalRights" appeared in today's High Plains/Midwest Ag Journal [ HPMAJ ]. The column, which you can read here , is a call to arms to factory farmers to fight back against those individuals and organizations working to protect farm animals from the abuses inherent in factory farms.
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.,
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 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. I hope you enjoyed them and learned from them.
My personal perspective regarding Animal Ethics is not fully formed, which is one of the reasons why Keith and I felt it would be a good idea for me to post on here. I have always felt a sense of connection to animals since as far back as I can remember, and the current manner in which they are treated in factory farms disturbs me.
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). Originally, I said, I was focused on animals.
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