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
Here are some highlights: Mantle: "How do you respond to: Yeah, you may find something that benefits humans, but it's not worth it and it's not ethically right?" Tags: Activism Current Affairs Ethics Gray Matters Animal Liberation Front animal rights David Jentsch Jerry Vlasak UCLA vivisection. Guess what the answer is?
Are people who work in slaughterhouses and who vivisect their fellow sentient beings evil? Tags: Ethics Language. Is evil something you do but not who you are? Does evil imply you know better and you choose X anyway? Is evil an excuse we make for people?
4) are abhorrent acts condemned by the vast majority of animal advocates and the organizations who represent them, including the National Anti-Vivisection Society. Peggy Cunniff Executive Director National Anti-Vivisection Society Chicago, Aug. And justice for animals will never be achieved through criminal acts.
They had a direct effect on seventeenth-century behavior as manifested, for example, in the popularity of public vivisections, not as an aid to scientific discovery but simply as a technical display. These teachings, it should be observed, were more than metaphysical speculations.
As regards capricious killing, one hopes so; but what of vivisection, and of the eating of red meat? One then proceeds, however, as one will, to systematize and minimize one's ethical axioms by reducing some causally to others. One thinks also of unborn generations.
But they now turn around the question what is to count as "making animals suffer unnecessarily," whether, for example, vivisection or fox-hunting are, in these terms, morally justifiable. Controversies no doubt remain.
So while it is generally agreed that it is wrong to experiment on human beings without their consent in the expectation of making scientific discoveries, there is no such general opposition to animal vivisection. Biological warfare against human beings is generally condemned but not biological warfare against animals.
Dunayer devotes a chapter each to the language used in hunting, zoos, "marine parks," vivisection and "animal agriculture." I haven't examined each institutionalized use of animals the way that Dunayer has, with the possible exception of vivisection, and I learned a lot about the details of the language of each industry.
Two-thirds believe that nonhumans have as much "right to live free of suffering" as humans, but vivisection, food-industry enslavement and slaughter, and other practices that cause severe, prolonged suffering are legal (49). Tags: Books Ethics Language. Most believe that it's wrong to hunt animals for sport, but sport hunting is legal.
Is it possible that videos of open rescue or undercover videos taken of vivisection could be somehow lumped in with snuff and other vile videos and considered unacceptable (and don't think that wouldn't be intentional), therefore taking an important tool away from activists? What do you think?
From the perspective of the land ethic, the immoral aspect of the factory farm has to do far less with the suffering and killing of nonhuman animals than with the monstrous transformation of living things from an organic to a mechanical mode of being. That immoral something is the transmogrification of organic to mechanical processes. (
There's a vague sense that perhaps he cares about the dogs or thinks that what he does to them might present an ethical dilemma, but the overwhelming feeling is that it's all worth it. Tags: Activism Current Affairs Ethics Language. This one gives us a look inside the mind of the vivisectionist, Daniel Engber. Or mute babies?
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