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
You’d think, then, that applying science to philosophy by studying the evolutionary underpinnings of thought and behavior across species would be right up my alley. With those caveats in mind, I took up Dale Peterson’s The Moral Lives of Animals with hope and not a little trepidation.
In between way north and way south, the majority of Hudwits either fly right on over, or stop at regular rest and refueling sites. These days, we have a bit more coverage but the trick to connecting with a Hudwit in Costa Rica is the same as finding rare migrants anywhere; luck to be in the right place at just the right time.
In " 'Animal Rights:' Pernicious Nonsense for Both Law & Public Policy ," Massachusetts attorney and "sportsman" Richard Latimer is on the mark with some concepts, and way off with others. Now, I know you're saying: That's not what animal rights is. It has absolutely nothing to do with any genuine environmentalist ethic.
Morale becomes strained as outside influences push in. Proven leadership principles may be the first to go by the wayside, but leaders can maintain morale by moving remote workers to a place of optimism. No one should be surprised if loneliness and strained morale arise from working remotely. That won’t happen on its own.
Morale becomes strained as outside influences push in. Leaders can maintain morale by moving remote workers to a place of optimism. Step one is to get your own head right when the sky is falling, because optimism feeds down from the top. No one should be surprised if loneliness and strained morale arise from working remotely.
Although lip service was paid to the fact that lions are endangered and a lion was poached, the language of anger was the language of animals rights. The killing of Cecil was equated with murder, a moral crime rather than a symptom of a ecological problem. This is of course an anathema for many in the animal rights camp.
The way I see it, there are three camps on this one: People who think that dolphins or Great Apes or chimps could function as a gateway to other animals getting rights. You could be for or against animal rights and believe the gateway theory. Would you actually actively campaign against rights for some species?
The Coalition to Ban Horse-Drawn Carriages calls itself "an animal rights-protection-abolitionist organization," which I find interesting. It is a conflict of interest for animal protection organizations to advocate for the drivers' jobs at the expense of the horses and they lose their moral authority by confusing those priorities.
Here's a hint from the authors: In the end, it's not the grammarians and usage experts who decide what's right. The animal rights movement, such as it is, is experiencing somewhat of a crisis of usage. I feel for the purist also with regard to the terms "animal rights" and "abolition." So who's right?
Since our trip was meant to leave from Cabuya, we were in the right place for this fine year bird. Another vagrant that has been hanging out in Costa Rica, an individual of this duck species from either Peru or the Galapagos has been living at the shorebird hotspot of Punta Morales for more than a month.
To be called Lesser Racquet-tailed Drongo – what does this do to the morale of a species? Orange-bellied Leafbird among leaves: somebody got it right naming this bird. If you like this kind of information – and who wouldn`t – I recommend the website where I found this, [link]. A Long-tailed Sibia. Pygmy Cupwing. Meet Mr. and Ms.
Luck always plays a role for seeing these monster goshawks but so does looking for them in the right places. Although most times, they still skulk down below the feeder, on a couple of occasions, I had one of them jump right up and partake in papaya on the feeder platform. Quetzals, hummingbirds, and tanagers.
There are a lot of similarities between that movement and today's animal rights movement (such as it is.but that's another post). The drive to emancipate slaves was grounded on religious and moral grounds. It's not there and it is one crucial element the animal rights movement is missing. Just look at the pro-life movement.
As for nice clothing … right! Moral: they’re everywhere. “I Second, even if we do, we have discovered through bitter experience that jewelry can either be snatched or, like very small guns, used against us. People who work with wildlife wearing nice clothes? Oh my, where do I start?”
I came across this 2005 book from the Society & Animals Journal titled Confronting Cruelty Moral Orthodoxy and the Challenge of the Animal Rights Movement. Readership: This book will be of interest to anyone who wishes to understand the animal rights movement in England, the United States and Australia. Sounds interesting.
Hal Herzog’s “ Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat ” (Harper 2011), though fascinating, is ultimately depressing for vegans and animal rights activists. Over at Animal Rights and AntiOppression , we’ve been discussing tactics and sharing our thoughts and experiences about what works and doesn’t work when it comes to advocacy.
We want to take a building that has been a flashpoint for conflict on one moral issue and turn it into a place of dialogue on another one," said Bruce Friedrich, vice president for policy at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. PETA wants to buy the clinic owned by slain Dr. Tiller. "We
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 human animals have done to them or their habitat or their food).
To see an issue of such moral debate minimized to simply economic activity is just not right. Our country needs federal stimulus money and I was a big supporter of this initiative of President Obama's. But it disappoints and frustrates me to see it consistently used for purposes that I passionately oppose.
A third of a century ago, when the modern animal-liberation movement was in its infancy, Martin published an essay entitled “A Critique of Moral Vegetarianism,” Reason Papers (fall 1976): 13-43. You will, therefore, agree with Martin about moral vegetarianism but not about Christianity. Another reason is moral. One is health.
For an explanation of this feature, click on “Moral Vegetarianism” at the bottom of this post. The Argument from Animal Rights A stronger argument is made by people who maintain that animals have rights. In particular, it has been argued that animals have a right to life. The subject is a large and controversial one.
There is no inconsistency in rejecting plant rights while accepting animal rights. If Smith thinks that plant rights and animal rights stand or fall together, then he is confused, for there is a morally relevant difference between plants and animals, namely, that only the latter are sentient.
The fact that man knows right from wrong proves his intellectual superiority to the other creatures; but the fact that he can do wrong proves his moral inferiority to any creature that cannot. Of the entire brood, he is the only one that possesses malice. He is the only creature that inflicts pain for sport, knowing it to be pain.
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?
For all of you who think there are no moral quandaries to vivisection and animal research, read this. They just want to take away our rights to research!" At least someone who has conducted animal research has a conscience and is willing to write about it. In fact, read the whole 5-part series in Slate.
With stay-at-home mandates causing what many reference as the “groundhog day” effect, your sales team is the perfect audience for incorporating surprise rewards as part of a sales incentive program to keep remote teams engaged and company morale high. Reward for the right reasons. Defining the unexpected reward.
But now the blinders are coming off, and it is time Leftists take their own off and wake up to the fact of the ethological revolution and its profound implications for human identity, our moral relationships to nonhuman animals, and to politics. Check out the rest and let me know what you think. Why can we talk?
Last night, I watched "Milk," the film about assassinated gay rights activist Harvey Milk. I not only learned about Harvey Milk, but about the early stages of the gay rights movement (which is ongoing today when one looks at all the right-wing flutterings over gay marriage.) Just the sorry animal rights movement.
For an explanation of this feature, click on “Moral Vegetarianism” at the bottom of this post. ARGUMENTS FOR MORAL VEGETARIANISM A variety of arguments have been given for vegetarianism. Sometimes they take such a sketchy form that it is not completely clear they are moral arguments. Tags: Moral Vegetarianism.
One complaint many of us have with "liberals" and "progressives" is that they tend to leave veganism and animal rights out of their sphere of concern. The Morality Of Food (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com). Tags: Activism Current Affairs Ethics animal rights Animal welfare Nutrition The Goode Family Veganism Vegetarianism.
I've been reading the literature of animal rights for nearly three decades, and contributing to it for the past decade or so. fails to tell his readers what it is to have a right), fails to distinguish between positive rights and negative rights, and in general glosses over all the important questions, philosophical and otherwise.
If an animal has the relevant moral capacities, actually or potentially, then it can be a possessor of rights. The evidence available to date about the rational capacities of animals is far from complete, but to date it appears to be decidedly unfavourable to the view that any animals possess the relevant moral capacities.
Forty years ago, the suggestion that nonhuman animals have moralrights—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. Note from KBJ: This post is by Mylan Engel.
Philosophers have shown that the standard reasons offered to exclude animals from the moral circle, and to justify not assessing our treatment of them by the same moral categories and machinery we use for assessing the treatment of humans, do not meet the test of moral relevance. 41 in A Companion to Bioethics , 2d ed.,
For an explanation of this feature, click on “Moral Vegetarianism” at the bottom of this post. The Argument from Human Grain Shortage All of the clearly moral arguments for vegetarianism given so far have been in terms of animal rights and suffering. Tags: Moral Vegetarianism. KBJ: I’m speechless.
Why is it surprising that I have little to say about the nature of rights? It would only be surprising to one who assumes that my case for animal liberation is based upon rights and, in particular, upon the idea of extending rights to animals. I have little to say about rights because rights are not important to my argument.
For every person, being a subject of interests, has rights, i.e., has a claim to respect of his interests under the law of equality of persons. Under the moral law, all beings who have interests are subjects of rights, while all those who in addition to having interests, are capable of grasping the demands of duty, are subjects of duties.
One restriction on the absolutism of man's rule over Nature is now generally accepted: moral philosophers and public opinion agree that it is morally impermissible to be cruel to animals. Controversies no doubt remain.
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., We're not asking that any nonhumans have freedom of speech or voting rights. Instead, it is the campaign to modify it.
But the ease with which we can tell our stories and post our videos must not render us incapable of moral judgment and decency. Free Speech may be a noble ideal, but perhaps we are better served by thinking of it not only as a right but also as a privilege. They certainly depict cruelty to animals, right? What do you think?
I assumed that Hume was right in thinking that ultimately morality depends on how we feel about things. Many prominent animal-rights advocates (such as Tom Regan ) are deontologists rather than consequentialists. Perhaps Smart was still thinking (in 1980) of Kant versus Bentham, rationality versus sentience.
Now when we ask what is the general nature of morally good actions, it seems quite clear that it is in virtue of the motives that they proceed from that actions are morally good. Thus a morally good action need not be the doing of a right act, and the doing of a right act need not be a morally good action.
I'm not saying give up on "animal rights," either. I'm not talking about morality here, I'm talking about language. I'm not talking about morality here, I'm talking about language. And the real question is, is there thought--or is there morality-without language?
Because I've been thinking about the evolution of my own thinking--and languaging--regarding animal rights. Both animal rights groups and animal welfare groups use "compassion" frequently. No matter how they are treated, is it right to use them? Why all the quotation marks? Then again, so do people who kill animals for a living.
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