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
" Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals ," By Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce, is the most recent (for me) book that debunks myths about the differences between human and nonhuman animals. Also, Bekoff and Pierce present a descriptive view, not a normative view of morality. There are no judgments.
Well, as it turns out neither a trip to a slaughterhouse nor killing an animal yourself is powerful enough to make people go vegan. The bottom line is that there are many reasons why human-animal interactions are so often inconsistent and paradoxical. He watched cockfighting and killed and skinned animals, but won’t eat veal.
Furthermore, there's the notion that though you're not for violence, you recognize that the most significant vehicle for the liberation of nonhuman animals, just like the liberation of humananimals, probably isn't going to be a petition. Or vegan pumpkin pie. Now there's a word I can get behind.
After all, many activists don't support the use of the same tactics they'd approve of to liberate humananimals to liberate nonhuman animals. There's no good reason to lack confidence that animals who possess a brain are sentient (134). I'm not saying it's not speciesist, but that I understand it.
She specializes in Environmental Ethics, Human-Animal Ethics, and Moral Psychology. Some of her notable publications include: “The Power of the Visual,” “Western Environmental Ethics,” “Vices of Inattention,” and “The Moral Responsibilities of Intellectuals.”
Notice that we (including, I assume, the author) would never allow such treatment of a human being. Perhaps she would argue that there is no double standard, i.e., that there is a morally relevant difference between humananimals and nonhuman animals that justifies the difference in treatment.
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? Systematic cullings in the absence of feasible alternatives, therefore, may be morally permissible.
And animal rights isn't focused on what happens in the world outside of us that we aren't directly profiting from and that isn't happening because of us (that last one is nearly impossible, as you can trace many problems other animals experience back to something humananimals have done to them or their habitat or their food).
The most recent execution, of Kenneth Biros, involved 30 minutes to find a vein for the single-drug and "the execution only reinforced that any form of capital punishment is legally suspect and morally wrong.". Where's the moral objection on behalf of cows? That is the way to eliminate the inevitable problems with executions."
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