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
Tell me, what happens if we rip away hunting when hunting protects more wildlife land in Africa than national parks? The killing of Cecil was equated with murder, a moral crime rather than a symptom of a ecological problem. Conservation is concerned about protecting populations, species, habitats, ecosystems. I’m sorry.
The Coalition to Ban Horse-Drawn Carriages calls itself "an animal rights-protection-abolitionist organization," which I find interesting. The well being of the horses should be the ideal of every organization whose mandate is to put animal protection ideals first - especially when they ask for donations based on that mandate.
If you love your cats so much, why don’t you protect them? There is no moral ambiguity here. Can you convince yourselves that your cat does not kill birds, when statistics show pet cats only bring home 23% of their kills? If that’s the case, then let me show you what happens to outdoor cats.
At that time Arjan had a brief visit to his homeland, the Netherlands, which boosted his morale, but also offered a chance to repack his backpack: “After three months of nonstop travel, I know exactly what is unnecessary and what is lacking. Slowly but surely, I start to realize that breaking the world record could become a reality.”
A new willingness among scientists to consider certain moral and ethical implications with respect to wild animals, where previously utilitarian ideas prevailed, including ideas of intrinsic value. As a consequence, “people should treat all creatures decently, and protect them from cruelty, avoidable suffering, and unnecessary killing.”
But in the end, being dead doesn’t protect an animal from mortality. Time and chance happeneth to museum specimens. Noble restoration work has been done at the AMNH, particularly to the glamorous megafauna. Taxidermy is a bizarre art. It is driven by love for animals, but relies on their deaths to exist.
We’re all connected through email and listservs, and we all swap information and provide each other with moral support. The story of smuggling an eagle to Canada is fiction, as it would be far too stressful even for a bird used to being around people. The rehabber connection, though, is very real. The book is darkly funny.
A new survey is getting the attention of many within the global animal protection community. Covering both moral and strategic issues, the "Ethics and Animals" survey will provide a snapshot of our movement as of the present moment. Everyone is invited to participate and share their views on what's best for animals.
He is an unabashed speciesist, putting humans on “a different moral plane from that of other animals” (11) due to various reasons, such as our “vastly greater capacity for symbolic language, culture, and ethical judgment” (11). On page 172, when Herzog writes, “I am conflicted over many moral issues involving animals,” I respond, “No kidding!”
She happens to live in the middle of the New Forest, 94,000 acres of heath and woodland, protected as a National Park and probably the UK’s best area in which to find Dartford Warbler. This dilemma comes from a visit to see my sister this week and being squeezed for time.
An unethical deed can be morally wrong but not illegal. Bottom line: We must strive to become more direct and curious about our actions and less protective of our own sensibilities. There are times when you protect your client and times when you protect yourself. Ethics differ from person to person.
There is a difficulty about drawing from all this a moral for ourselves. But then we can say this because we can say that all those are bad moralities, whereas we cannot look at our own moralities and declare them bad. This sympathy can be a basis for revising one's moral principles so as to take animals into account.
They were protecting the last three pairs that were left in West Germany from egg thieves! Allegedly, the German reunification had a boosting effect on the morale of this German national symbol and the species decided to show its support by increasing incredibly fast ever since.
For an explanation of this feature, click on “Moral Vegetarianism” at the bottom of this post. Consequently, the killing of some animals for food, if done painlessly, is not morally objectionable. According to Benn, only moral agents have rights. It is clear that few animals, if any, are moral agents in this sense.
Now, I do hope you have stayed with me to this point, because there is a moral to this story: How much do you like your ducks, grebes, sandpipers, and plovers? Perhaps you like them enough to have supported legislation protecting wetlands in the United States and Canada. The post Who cares for your ducks in the winter?
For an explanation of this feature, click on “Moral Vegetarianism” at the bottom of this post. SOME PROBLEMS OF MORAL VEGETARIANISM With respect to traditional moral vegetarianism some problems immediately come to the fore. What animals is it morally wrong to eat? But what is the extent of the universal moral principle?
However, even in the face of this change, we need to do everything we can to keep morale high. Rallying the organization around things they can control like a new product release or NPS Scores is a great way to keep the team motivated and morale high during these uncertain times. . Shifting Messaging .
Of the Central Flyway states, Nebraska alone holds out in protecting the cranes, having proven by its longstanding Festival of the Cranes in Kearney that a crane is worth infinitely more alive and purring in the sky with its family than thudding, broken and bleeding, into a cornfield. It is OK for people to like to hunt.
Utilitarians persuaded of the leading premise here should, I think, be willing to pay the higher prices, and to plump for protections of animals of the kind in question. And the other is taking up vegetarianism. But what about the vegetarian alternative? Here what one needs to do is calculate the pleasure, interest, satisfaction, etc.,
the development of field-based ornithological research in Europe and Great Britain; a quick step back through the history to look at bird protection, conservation, and our precarious future, with a focus on Birkhead’s long-term (50 years!) Common Guillemot research at Skomer Island, Wales.
Dolphins are so smart that scientists think they should be treated as "non-human persons" and as such it is "morally unacceptable" to use or kill them. The entire discussion, I fear, will be about comparing dolphins to humans and the more human-like they are, the more intelligent they are, and the more worthy of moral consideration they are.
The International Primate Protection League was active in exposing and urging prosecution of this case. Aside from the moral issues involved in animal experimentation, why are US taxpayer dollars going to a company started by a man who went to jail for smuggling, and then transferred control of the company to his wife and mother?
Juluri is referring to something specific: the Supreme Court's examination of First Amendment protection of acts of cruelty to animals. But the ease with which we can tell our stories and post our videos must not render us incapable of moral judgment and decency. And the article is worth reading just for that.
Latimer refers to his previous two posts where he has "documented the ethical and moral shallowness of the 'animal rights' credo itself, which is based more on an anti-human self hatred, taking the form of a 'moral' squeamishness concerned more with stamping out human 'cruelty,' no matter what the social or economic costs might be.
If people are encouraged to believe that the harm done to animals matters morally only when these animals belong to endangered species, then these same people will be encouraged to regard the harm done to other animals as morally acceptable.
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. Similar considerations, I suggest, apply when we ask whether it is proper to say that animals have moral rights.
Forty years ago, the suggestion that nonhuman animals have moral rights—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.
Forty years ago, the suggestion that nonhuman animals have moral rights—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.
To inflict death or pain on animals for scientific or medical research is wrong morally, and ought to be prohibited. They may be killed in order to protect the health of humans (and other animals) if they are infected with a serious disease and cannot be quarantined. Animals cannot give consent.
Nor have I dealt with advances in the legal protection of animals both in practice and in theory. I have focused exclusively on moral theory. Franklin, Animal Rights and Moral Philosophy [New York: Columbia University Press, 2005], xvii-xviii) I have not reviewed these horrors here, because so many powerful accounts exist.
In order to protect himself, therefore, he is not likely to rest his case upon (an appeal to) the state and intensities of our feelings. What the vegetarian wants, surely, is that we should stop eating meat even if our liking for it exceeds our revulsion at the suffering endured on factory farms.
I do need to note that a rare error crops up here–LISTSERV is not a generic electronic bulletin board, it is a propriety product owned by a company and the use of the term is protected by trademark law. The sections are also labeled according to the months of the year, the idea being that the book will take us through a year of birding.
To this day, 95 percent of the animals used in research labs receive no federal protection whatsoever under the Animal Welfare Act." The animal-welfare groups have failed in their most ambitious efforts to protect laboratory rodents. "We That exemption remains in force, despite Schwindaman's later attempts to overturn it.
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. With successes like these, factory farmers do have cause for worry. Factory farmers treat animals inhumanely for no good reason.
Their interests are primarily protected, if at all, through archaic state anti-cruelty statutes that were not passed in contemplation of the factory-farm or genetic engineering. Though factory-farming and biotechnological techniques massively violate the moral rights of farm animals, they have no remedy.
If the goal is not moral perfection for ourselves, but the maximum benefit for animals, half-measures ought to be encouraged and appreciated. How far do we go in protecting them? Mr. Steiner rightly rejects this view as morally flawed. My moral boundaries may be rational or reflexive, expansive or selfish—who can judge?
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. So far McCloskey is on solid ground, but one can quarrel with his denial that any animals but humans have interests. Rather his job is to look out for the interests of the animal and make sure no one denies it its due.
But prejudices die hard, all the more so when, as in the present case, they are insulated by widespread secular customs and religious beliefs, sustained by large and powerful economic interests, and protected by the common law. Moral philosophy is no substitute for political action. Might does not make right; might does make law.
As an intelligent primate, I’d much rather be an ambassador for my species in a secure environment—served the best food and tended to by top-notch veterinarians—than take my chances in a national park where poverty and corruption result in little or no protection for the non-human residents. Lisa Edmondson, Los Angeles
It is that coercion (via legal prohibition) is not a proper method of protecting animals, at least if the aim is to protect animals. Of all the ways of influencing behavior, rational persuasion is the most effective, the most secure (in the sense of long-lasting), and the most defensible from a moral point of view.
Ethical vegetarianism is the thesis that killing and eating animals is morally wrong whenever equally nutritious plant-based alternatives are available. Causing an animal to suffer for no good reason is cruel, and our ordinary commonsense morality tells us in no uncertain terms that cruelty is wrong.
I’m tired of hearing people who enjoy killing justify it with specious moral platitudes. It is only the prejudice of our species that justifies culling the deer population while protecting our own. He says meat tastes more precious when you’ve watched it die. May I recommend a trip to a slaughterhouse? Animals suffer when killed.
In 2002 the German Parliament amended Article 26 of the Basic Law to give nonhuman animals the right to be “respected as fellow creatures” and to be protected from “avoidable pain.” Properly interpreted, the common law is meant to be flexible, adaptable to changes in public morality, and sensitive to new scientific discoveries.
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