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
The world is facing a growing threat from new diseases that are jumping the human-animalspecies barrier as a result of environmental disruption, global warming and the progressive urbanisation of the planet, scientists have warned. And people actually believe we've conquered nature?
I think of "old speciesism" as analogous to racism and sexism in that it is exploitation based on species. 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.,
Bekoff and Pierce (a philosopher) are the perfect combination to write this book because whenever you're presenting the similarities of nonhuman animals to humananimals, a philosophical conundrum is created for humans, who like to think that we are worlds different, and above nonhumans.
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).
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.
Because when you compare two species, or rather a nonhuman animalspecies to the humananimal, the humans almost always come out on top. The point is to show how much another species is like us, but of course never as good as we are, at whatever the measurement is.
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