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
Yesterday, regarding being a minority within a minority , mikey commented (among other things): While I am fairly new subscriber to this blog, therefore not knowing your particular stance, I've often felt like a minority within a minority for my stance on animal birth control.
It was not a whim or an attempt to get attention, as the sensationalist press will say; instead this is a response to the domination, objectification and commodification of millions of animals (mink, chinchilla, fox, raccoons, etc.)
Does my proposal as to what makes killing another human being generally a major moral wrong in any way help us with deciding what, if anything, is wrong with killing non-humananimals and foetuses? I believe it does help. This is not to say that other instrumentalist considerations (e.g.
Dear Ma'am, There is nothing wrong with bestiality unless the animal is being bound or forced, in relation to bondage, where the animal can not bite or flee. All religion aside, there is nothing wrong with bestiality unless one is damaging the animal, physically or mentally, which might get difficult to describe or prove.
I propose that the moral significance of the suffering, mutilation, and death of non-humananimals rests on the following, which may be called the overflow principle: Act towards that which, while not itself a person, is closely associated with personhood in a way coherent with an attitude of respect for persons.
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