- New
-
Topics
- All Categories
- Metaphysics and Epistemology
- Value Theory
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Logic and Philosophy of Logic
- Philosophy of Biology
- Philosophy of Cognitive Science
- Philosophy of Computing and Information
- Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Physical Science
- Philosophy of Social Science
- Philosophy of Probability
- General Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Science, Misc
- History of Western Philosophy
- Philosophical Traditions
- Philosophy, Misc
- Other Academic Areas
- Journals
- Submit material
- More
Animal Rights
Edited by Erwin Lengauer
About this topic
| Summary |
Broadly construed, animal rights is an area of inquiry and debate that focuses on a variety of approaches to assessing the moral status of nonhuman animals. One of the main approaches in contemporary scholarship is deontological and argues for strict rights for animals on the grounds that they are subjects-of-a-life (Tom Regan) and thus possess inherent worth; such views often seek to expand Kant's ascription of inherent worth to rational agents so that it applies to all sentient beings. Other views, including those of some secular naturalists, seek to ascribe rights to animals not on the basis of inherent worth but on the basis of capacities shared by all sentient beings. Another main approach encompasses a variety of views that tend to be "welfarist" in the sense that they do not seek to ascribe strict right to animals but instead argue that certain actions performed against animals (such as killing them or using them as sources of milk or eggs) are permissible as long as human beings perform them in a humane manner. Welfarist views are generally utilitarian in character, being based on calculations of the quantity of harm that can be done to a given living being, and they tend to assert hierarchies in which beings that are cognitively more sophisticated can be harmed in ways in which beings that are cognitively less sophisticated cannot; on the basis of such hierarchization, welfarist views typically ascribe moral superiority to human beings over nonhuman animals, although they also tend to avoid a speciesistic privileging of all human beings over all nonhuman animals on the grounds that some nonhuman animals are cognitively superior to some human beings. Thus thinkers such as Peter Singer argue that self-conscious beings have a stronger claim to life than non-self-conscious beings, where self-conscious beings are defined as those that can conceptualize the past, present, and future of their lives as one coherent whole. (Summary written by Gary Steiner and Erwin Lengauer) |
| Key works |
Armstrong, Susan / Botzler, Richard (ed.) ²2008. The Animal Ethics Reader - (AER). 2nd Edition. London; New York, NY, Routledge. Beauchamp, Tom L. / Frey, Raymond G. (eds.) 2011. The Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Bekoff, Marc (ed.) 2010. Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare. 2 Volume Set. Santa Barbara, CA, Greenwood Press, Imprint of ABC - Clio. Cavalieri, Paola 2001. The Animal Question: Why Non-Human Animals Deserve Human Rights. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Chapouthier, Georges (ed.) 1998. The Universal Declaration of Animal Rights: Comments and Intentions. Paris, Ligue Francaise des Droit de l´Animal. DeGrazia, David (1996). Taking Animals Seriously. Mental Life and Moral Status. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dombrowski, Daniel A. 1997. Babies and Beasts: The Argument from Marginal Cases. Urbana, IL, University of Illinois Press. Francione, Gary 2008. Animals as Persons: Essays on the Abolition of Animal Exploitation. New York, NY, Columbia University Press. Garner, Robert 2005. The Political Theory of Animal Rights (Perspectives on Democratization). Manchester, Manchester University Press. Kalof, Linda / Fitzgerald, Amy (eds.). 2007. The Animals Reader: The Essential Classic and Contemporary Writings. Oxford, Berg. Munro, Lyle 2005. Confronting Cruelty. Moral Orthodoxy and the Challenge of the Animal Rights Movement. Human-Animal Studies. (Dissertation). Leiden, Brill Academic. Palmer, Clare (ed.) 2008. Animal Rights. Clare Palmer. Series: The International Library of Essays on Rights. Aldershot, GB, Ashgate Publishing Company. Pluhar, Evelyn 1995. Beyond Prejudice. The Moral Significance of Human and Nonhuman Animals. Durham, NC, Duke University Press. Regan, Tom 1983. The Case for Animal Rights. Berkeley, CA, University of California Press. Rollin, Bernard ²1992. Animal Rights and Human Morality. Amherst, Prometheus. Rowlands, Mark ²2009. Animal Rights. Moral Theory and Practice. London, Macmillan Press. Sapontzis, Steve F. 1987, ²1992. Morals, Reason and Animals. Philadelphia, PA, Temple University Press. Singer, Peter 1975, ²1990. Animal Liberation. A New Ethics for our Treatment of Animals. New York, NY, New York Review of Book. Singer, Peter (ed.) 2006. In Defense of Animals. The Second Wave. Malden, Blackwell. Steiner, Gary 2008. Animals and the Moral Community: Mental Life, Moral Status, and Kinship. New York, NY, Columbia University Press. Steiner, Gary. 2013. Animals and the Limits of Postmodernism. New York: Columbia University Press. |
| Introductions |
Beauchamp, Tom L. 2011. Rights Theory and Animal Rights. In. Beauchamp, Tom L. / Frey, Raymond G. (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics. Oxford, Oxford University Press: 198-227. DeGrazia, David 2002. Animal Rights: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Gruen, Lori 2010. The Moral Status of Animals. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2010 Edition), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2010/entries/moral-animal Regan, Tom 2001. Animals, treatment of. In: Becker, Lawrence (ed.). Encyclopedia of Ethics. New York, Routledge: 70-74 (on page 72 about Inherentism) Regan, Tom ³2004. Animal Welfare and Rights. In: Post, Stephen (ed.). Encyclopedia of Bioethics. 3. edition. New York, NY, Macmillan. E-Book Version Wilson, Scott 2010. Animals and Ethics In: Fieser, James (ed.). Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Martin, TN, The University of Tennessee at Martin. – Wise, Steve M. 2011. animal rights. Encyclopaedia Britannica: Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/25760/animal-rights |
Show all references
Related
Siblings
- Animal Cruelty (77)
- Animal Well-Being (131)
- Speciesism (280)
- Vegetarianism (477)
- Animal Experimentation (505)
- Animal Captivity (351)
- Domestic Animals (290)
- Moral Status of Animals (918)
- Animal Ethics, Misc (433)
Contents
1071+ found
Order:
| 1 — 50 / 1071 |
- (1 other version)Do Animals Need Rights?William A. Edmundson - 2014 - Journal of Political Philosophy 22 (2):345-360.
- Animal Rights and the Wrongness of Killing.Leslie Allan - manuscriptThis essay explores the moral reasoning underpinning the common view that it is worse to kill a human compared with killing an animal. After examining the serious deficiencies of traditional approaches, the author develops an alternative utilitarian-based framework that proportions the seriousness of killing to levels of sentience. He demonstrates how this new approach avoids the problems faced by the application of standard utilitarian formulae in weighing the seriousness of killing many low-sentience animals vis-á-vis killing a single human. The author (...)
- A Good Deal? Thoughts on Zangwill’s argument for carnivorism.Paul Bali - manuscriptMark Zangwill [2021, 2022] argues that we have a moral duty to eat meat where we've been in a mutually beneficial relation with the kind of animal eaten. While there may be, in principle, an ethically defensible mutualism between humans and the animals we feed on, I argue that our actual relation with even animals outside the factory farm seems exploitive, not mutualist. Castration (usually sans analgesic), maternal deprivation, and genetic contortion (if only the slow contortion of selective breeding) impose (...)
- (Draft) Cows, crickets and clams: On the alleged 'vegan' obligation to eat different kinds of meat.Benjamin Davies - manuscriptVegans do not eat meat. This statement seems so obvious that one might be tempted to claim that it is analytically true. Yet several authors argue that the underlying logic of veganism warrants – perhaps even demands – eating meat. I begin by considering an important principle that has been important in motivating vegan meat-eating, related to an obligation to reduce or minimise harm. I offer an alternative, rights-based view, and suggest that while this might support an obligation to eat (...)
- A Theory of Moral Status Based on Reproductive Potentiality and the Dynamic Integrity of Genetic Information: Beings That Must Not Be Confined.Lee Jin-Hyeong - manuscriptThis paper extends the framework of dynamic informational integrity, developed in the companion paper “Beings That Must Not Be Killed,” to the moral problem of confinement. In doing so, it articulates a normative foundation that the companion paper left implicit: that dynamic informational processes possess moral significance in virtue of the normative properties—sentience, social cognition, cultural transmission—that such processes realize, and that the connection to rationality functions as a strengthening condition that elevates protection to its highest level rather than as (...)
- 動物の権利について.Riku Murao - manuscript
- Self Deception and Happiness.Talya D. Osseily - manuscriptThe argument in this essay will be divided into two parts: utilitarian and virtue ethics, where each party will agree or disagree with the idea that self-deception leads to happiness, taking climate change and meat production as examples to support their claims.
- Animal Rights: A Critique.Oliver Barclay - unknown - Science and Christian Belief 4 (1):49-61.Remove from this listExport citationBookmark
- Why Eating Roadkill is Wrong: New Consequentialist and Deontological Perspectives.Cheryl Abbate - forthcoming - In Book Chapter.Some animal ethicists argue that eating roadkill is permissible because salvaging and consuming already dead animals doesn’t cause harm to anyone. Moreover, some argue that eating roadkill is actually obligatory, insofar as a diet that includes some roadkill is less harmful than a diet that consists of protein (animal or plant) obtained only from grocery stores and restaurants. Against this view, Abbate argues that eating roadkill is wrong for at least two reasons: (1) better consequences would be produced if roadkill (...)
- How to Live Nonviolently in a Large Sentient World: Replies to Pepper, Hurn and Badman-King, and O’Brien.Jonathan Birch - forthcoming - Journal of Practical Ethics.The three commentaries on “Ethics for a large sentient world” raise several problems for a Gandhian approach to animal ethics. In my responses, I defend my position that granting robust rights to individual insects is untenable, pushing us to look harder at alternative options. I explain how Gandhi’s commitment to nonviolence allows him to avoid the unwelcome implications his principles might otherwise have. I consider his nuanced position on the interplay between general principles and embedded responses to particular situations. I (...)
- Ethics for a large sentient world: Insects, ahimsa, and Gandhi’s progressive ahimsaism.Jonathan Birch - forthcoming - Journal of Practical Ethics.Positions that link rights to sentience face an insect challenge: insects are plausibly sentient, yet recognizing individual insects as rights-bearers would problematize public health, veterinary and agricultural benefits obtained by harming them. The most obvious responses seem inadequate. Indian animal ethics, which has always taken the idea of insect sentience seriously, is a promising place to look for further options. Of particular relevance is the idea of ahimsa (nonviolence, noninjury), but ahimsa in its ancient form has metaphysical commitments that secular (...)
- Veganismus als Anti-Nihilismus.Björn Freter - forthcoming - Zeitschrift Für Kritische Tierstudien 2:91-99.Vermutlich ist nahezu jeder Tierethiker schon aufgefordert worden, sich nicht darüber mitzuteilen, wie es in moderner Massentierhaltung zugeht, denn das verdürbe doch die Möglichkeit, Fleisch weiterhin zu genießen. Diese Aufforderung ist reichlich merkwürdig. Denn sie kommt eigentlich zu spät. Der Mensch, der nicht mehr weiter über die Massentierhaltung hören will, hat offenkundig schon genug gehört, um zu wissen, dass eine erneute, eine tiefere Vergegenwärtigung eine ihm liebgewonnene Praxis verderben würde: Es ist mithin die (durch den Tierethiker nur bemerkbar gemachte) höchste (...)Remove from this listExport citationBookmark
- Pets, Power, and Legitimacy.Richard Healey & Pepper Angie - forthcoming - Philosophers' Imprint.This article argues that the relations of social and political power that obtain between humans and pets are illegitimate. We begin by showing that pets, a largely neglected population in political philosophy, are subject to socially and politically organised power, which stands in need of justification. We then argue that pets have three moral complaints against the relations of power to which they are subject. First, our power over pets disrespects their moral independence: the fact that they are not simply (...)
- Arguments against the Free Use of Beasts as Sexual Objects.Baldari John - forthcoming - Secularphilosophy.Net.I will argue against bestiality as a socially acceptable practice based on five standard premises. The standard premises I will present will contain notes in regard to: instrumentality; consent; disease transmission; deviance; and morality. There is significant work available on the harm done to the beast, so aside from brief summary; the question of the good of the beast is not in the focus. I will also ignore any religious concerns, either surrounding morality or freedom of practice. Instead, these arguments (...)
- Defending the use of animals by business: Animal liberation and environmental ethics.Eric Katz - forthcoming - Business, Ethics and the Environment: The Public Policy Debate.
- Broadening Our View of Beasts: Mary Midgley on Myopia, Myths, and Why Animals Matter.Ian James Kidd - forthcoming - In Ellie Robson, Midgley on Moral Philosophy and Ethics. Palgrave Macmillan.In the philosophical work of Mary Midgley, one defining theme is a careful and steadfast resistance to varieties of myopic thinking: problematically partial ways of perceiving, thinking about, and understanding the world. I argue that active resistance to myopic thinking reveals a unity and continuity to most, if not all, of her concerns, projects, and interventions. This claim is defended by exploring Midgley’s active anti-myopia as it manifests in her various contributions to philosophical discussions of the ethics and epistemology of (...)
- Got Rights?: No Dogs or Philosophers Allowed.Ken Knisely, Grace Clement, Bonnie Brown & Mark Parascondola - forthcoming - DVD.What is a right? Why do we say that individual humans have rights? Do humans have a unique moral status or do other living beings also have rights? Can animals ever be moral agents? Is there a tension between the animal rights movement and those whose see the environment as possessing some manner of rights? With Grace Clement, Bonnie Brown, and Mark Parascondola.Remove from this listExport citationBookmark
- The Ethics of Declawing Cats.Steven R. Kraaijeveld - forthcoming - Society and Animals.Onychectomy involves the surgical amputation of a cat's claws. Tendonectomy entails surgically cutting tendons to prevent the extension and full use of a cat's claws. Both surgeries practically declaw cats and are not only painful but also associated with high complication rates. While feline declawing surgeries have been banned in various places around the world, they are still elective in many countries and U.S. states. This article provides an ethical analysis of declawing cats. It discusses the harms posed by feline (...)
- Licensing Pet-keeping.Davide Pala & Matthew Wray Perry - forthcoming - Ethics, Policy and Environment.Pet-keeping is one of the most widespread human-animal relationships in the world. Despite its prevalence, this practice frequently results in animal welfare violations, including neglect, abuse, and abandonment. Pet-keepers often fail to adequately understand how to care for and interact with their pet. This article defends a novel proposal to regulate pet-keeping: a scheme of state licensing. On this proposal, prospective pet-keepers would be required to obtain a license by demonstrating competence in caring for a domesticated animal before acquiring one. (...)
- Review of Carol J. Adams, Alice Crary, and Lori Gruen (eds.) The Good It Promises, The Harm It Does: Critical Essays on Effective Altruism, 2023, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Richard Pettigrew - forthcoming - Mind.Effective altruists (EAs) seek to persuade the globally wealthy to donate a proportion of their income to do good, and specifically to donate it to those charit.
- Animal rights.Louis P. Pojman & Paul Pojman - forthcoming - Environmental Ethics: Reading in Theory and Application. Boston: Jones and Bartlett.
- Criminalising (cubes of) truth: animal advocacy, civil disobedience, and the politics of sight.Serrin Rutledge-Prior - forthcoming - Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy:1-25.Should animal advocates be allowed to publicly display graphic footage of how animals live (and die) in industrial animal use facilities? Cube of truth (‘cube’) demonstrations are a form of animal advocacy aimed at informing the public about the realities of animals’ experiences in places such as slaughterhouses, feedlots, and research facilities, by showing footage of mostly lawful practices within these workplaces. Activists engaging in cube-style protests have recently been targeted by law enforcement agencies in two Australian states on the (...)
- Animal Liberation.Mark Sagoff - forthcoming - Environmental Ethics: Bad Marriage, Quick.
- Animals and the law: Property, cruelty, rights.Jerrold Tannenbaum - forthcoming - Social Research: An International Quarterly.
- What Are Zoos For?; By Heather Browning and Walter Veit. [REVIEW]Kyle Johannsen - 2026 - Philosophy in Review 46 (1):13-15.
- Sentient dignity and the plausible inclusion of animals.Matthew Wray Perry - 2026 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 25 (1):55-83.Dignity often serves as the cornerstone for a justification of rights. However, it has been criticised for its exclusion of nonhuman animals and many human individuals: dignity is traditionally grounded in a capacity that some but not all humans and animals possess, e.g. rationality. To successfully overcome this problem of exclusion, this article argues that we should adopt an account of sentient dignity, i.e. an account of dignity based on sentience alone. The article thus makes three contributions. First, it demonstrates (...)
- Falsafa ya Haki za Wanyama.Tom Regan - 2026 - Adelmannsfelden: Rainer Ebert. Edited by Rainer Ebert. Translated by Wilson John Simon & Subira Ndutu.
- Animals and Human Rights.V. G. Topf & Matthew Wray Perry - 2026 - Philosophy Compass 21 (4).This article argues that human rights theory faces pressure from scholarship on animals. Because grounding human rights in bare species membership seems implausible, most theories ground such rights in species neutral criteria. These criteria may be naturalistic (based on sentience or autonomy, for example) or functionalist (based on the socio-political role of rights). Standard theories of human rights have not adequately addressed that many animals appear to meet these criteria, as we show that they do across a range of arguments. (...)
- Bearing witness, animal rights and the slaughterhouse vigil.Steve Cooke - 2025 - European Journal of Political Theory 24 (3):405-424.Animal activists sometimes engage in vigils and acts of witnessing as forms of political protest. For example, the Animal Save Movement, a global activist network, regards witnessing the suffering of non-human animals as a moral duty of veganism. The act of witnessing is intended to non-violently communicate both attitudes and principles. These forms of activism are unlike other forms of protest, relying for much of their force upon passive, non-confrontational actions. This article explores the ethical character of vigils and witnessing (...)
- A Defense of the Argument from Marginal Cases.Benjamin Elmore - 2025 - Journal of Animal Ethics 15 (2):127-137.In this paper, I will give a defense of the argument from marginal cases as a way of defending the moral standing of nonhuman animals. The work of Martha Nussbaum and Shelly Kagan may be used in an attempt criticize the argument, but I will attempt to block moves to do this that are based on Nussbaum’s species-norm and Kagan’s modal personism. Christine Korgaard has directly attacked the argument from marginal cases, but I will argue that the version I offer (...)
- Killing Owls Runs Afoul of More-Than-Human Rights.Joshua C. Gellers - 2025 - Ethics, Policy and Environment 28 (2):190-193.Jay Odenbaugh offers a wildlife management solution to the dilemma involving competing owl species. However, the topic of rights is curiously absent from this proposal. In this response, I argue that killing owls is morally and legally wrong whether approached from the perspective of animal rights or rights of nature. I contend that no matter which approach is taken, the conflicting state of various owl populations does not necessitate a duty to kill some portion of them. Instead, we should translate (...)
- The Ethics of Drones and Avian Life - A Philosophical Inquiry Through Kant and Nietzsche.Sonja Haugaard Christensen - 2025 - The Ethics of Drones and Avian Life - a Philosophical Inquiry Through Kant and Nietzsche.This essay explores the moral and philosophical implications of human aerial technology—especially drones and warplanes—on bird life, with a particular focus on war zones such as Ukraine and Gaza. While the devastating consequences of armed conflict on human populations are rightly central to political and ethical discourse, non-human lives, especially those of birds, remain largely invisible within these narratives. Through a philosophical lens grounded primarily in the thought of Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Nietzsche, this work asks: What does the destruction (...)
- An Alternative to Moral Vegetarianism for Meat-Eaters: Moral Cannibalism.Florian Marion - 2025 - Philosophy in the Contemporary World 31 (1):68-89.In this paper, I shall argue for Moral Cannibalism, namely the view that cannibalism is morally mandatory, at least for some meat-eaters animals, given some acceptable assumptions about justice and moral duty. Such an incredible claim will be preceded by a short exposition of the rationale for Moral Vegetarianism and for its adversary position Moral Omnivorism (§1), then I will briefly present Moral Cannibalism (§2), and finally I will discuss two arguments for it, a positive one (§3) and a negative (...)
- Tierethik.Michael Rosenberger, Konstantin Deininger & Herwig Grimm - 2025 - Baden-Baden: Nomos.Das Lehrbuch gibt einen Überblick über wichtige Ansätze der Tierethik in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Seine Leitfrage ist, wie der abendländische Anthropozentrismus überwunden und den Tieren moralischer Status zuerkannt werden kann. Jedes der acht Kapitel bietet im Anschluss an eine verständliche und klar strukturierte Darstellung einiger ethischer Ansätze einen oder mehrere Quellentexte mit Fragen sowie ein praktisches Fallbeispiel für die Diskussion unter Studierenden. Ein umfangreiches Literaturverzeichnis und ein Glossar mit allen einschlägigen Fachbegriffen sind weitere Hilfen für das Studium. Dabei wendet sich (...)
- Multispecies Legality: Animals and the Foundation of Legal Inclusion.Serrin Rutledge-Prior - 2025 - Cambridge University Press.Animals are unfortunately an afterthought in legal systems that have been developed to adjudicate the claims of humans and corporate entities. For those of us determined to extend the scope of justice to include animals, we must ask how to reshape our legal institutions to ensure that animal interests are considered alongside those of other, existing legal subjects. In this groundbreaking work, Serrin Rutledge-Prior departs from those who have proposed to extend legal personhood to animals, which in practice has proven (...)
- Martha C. Nussbaum, Justice for Animals: Our Collective Responsibility. [REVIEW]Vikas Beniwal - 2024 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 38 (2):367-372.
- Animal rights, animal research, and the need to reimagine science.Christopher Bobier, Noah Reinhardt & Kate Pawlowski - 2024 - The New Bioethics 30 (1):63-76.What would it look like for researchers to take non-human animal rights seriously? Recent discussions foster the impression that scientific practice needs to be reformed to make animal research ethical: just as there is ethically rigorous human research, so there can be ethically rigorous animal research. We argue that practically little existing animal research would be ethical and that ethical animal research is not scalable. Since animal research is integral to the existing scientific paradigm, taking animal rights seriously requires a (...)
- Choice, Shmoice: Argue Like (or with) a Libertarian About Abortion.Dmitry Chernikov - 2024 - Akron, Ohio: Dmitry Chernikov.The scholarship on the ethics of abortion was stimulated by the legalization of abortion in the United States in 1973. The recent overturning of Roe v Wade will likely have the same effect. This book discusses the libertarian perspective on the subject, drawing attention to the implications of self-ownership, Lockean appropriation and abandonment, private property rights, and so on. Much ground is covered, from history to the Supreme Court decisions to natural law to ensoulment. Choice sheds new philosophical light on (...)
- Two approaches to grounding moral standing: interests-first or value-first?Daniel Elbro - 2024 - Philosophical Studies 181 (11):3089-3111.Do non-human animals have moral standing? Work on this question has focused on choosing the right grounding property (for example, personhood or sentience) while little attention has been paid to the various ways that the connection between grounding properties and moral standing has been explained. In this paper, I address that gap by offering a fresh way to approach the debate over the grounds of moral standing, including a novel taxonomy of positions, and argue that one kind of position, which (...)
- Avoiding Anthropomoralism.Julian Friedland - 2024 - Between the Species 27 (1).The Montreal Declaration on Animal Exploitation, which has been endorsed by hundreds of influential academic ethicists, calls for establishing a vegan economy by banning what it refers to as all unnecessary animal suffering, including fishing. It does so by appeal to the moral principle of equal consideration of comparable interests. I argue that this principle is misapplied by discounting morally relevant cognitive capacities of self-conscious and volitional personhood as distinguished from merely sentient non-personhood. I describe it as a kind of (...)
- The Reach of Equality: Why humans and animals matter.William Gildea - 2024 - Dissertation, University of WarwickThe main aim of the thesis is to reject the idea that there is a hierarchy of moral status among humans and animals and to offer a new understanding of human and animal equality in its place. -/- Here’s the central puzzle that motivates the thesis. Humans seem more morally important than animals. Most philosophers explain this intuition by citing certain advanced mental properties that humans tend to have and animals lack. But this view relegates any human without these properties (...)
- Two Distinctions About Eating Animals.A. G. Holdier - 2024 - Between the Species 27 (1).In this paper I describe two distinctions about what “eating animals” entails which are often confused in conversations or arguments aimed against meat-based diets and try to show how both distinctions, on their own lights, ultimately support a concern for all fellow creatures, regardless of species or other biological categories. The distinctions in question are: the distinction between moral and nonmoral actions, presumptions about which serve to define whether or not particular topics (like meat consumption) deserve moral consideration whatsoever, and (...)
- Saving Animals, Saving Ourselves: Why Animals Matter for Pandemics, Climate Change, and Other Catastrophes; By Jeff Sebo.Kyle Johannsen - 2024 - Utilitas 36 (3):318-321.
- Positive Duties to Wild Animals.Kyle Johannsen (ed.) - 2024 - London: Routledge.This book further develops the interventionist literature on wild animal suffering using different theoretical frameworks, including some that have never previously been used to ground our positive duties to wild animals.------------Though we’ve always known that the wild is a nasty place where predators lethally attack prey, only recently have most animal ethicists come to realize that most wild animals fail to flourish. In fact, what we know about wild animal reproduction suggests that the majority of sentient beings born into the (...)
- Edibility and In Vitro Meat: Ethical Considerations; By Rachel Robison‐Greene.Kyle Johannsen - 2024 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 41 (1):170-171.
- Rejecting an Additive Solution to Regan’s Lifeboat Case.Daniel Kary - 2024 - Journal of Applied Animal Ethics Research 6 (1):53-72.This paper considers a solution to a scenario found in Tom Regan’s Case for Animal Rights, offered by Daniel Kary. Regan considers a case where either one human or any number of dog’s must be sacrificed. He chooses the human because they would be harmed more than any dog would be. This is initially puzzling since Regan claims that humans and dogs have equal inherent value (the objective value as an end that entities have). Kary’s solution argues the human should (...)
- New Omnivorism.Andy Lamey - 2024 - In Yanoula Athanassakis, Renan Larue & William O’Donohue, The Plant-based and Vegan Handbook: Psychological and Multidisciplinary Perspectives. Springer Verlag. pp. 151-63.New omnivorism is a dietary ethic that has arisen in response to animal protection (a better term for what is often referred to as animal rights, given that not all propnents of radically improving the treatment of animals employ the notion of rights, e.g., Singer, 1990). Where proponents of animal protection have traditionally invoked animal rights, anti-speciesism, and related concepts to condemn eating animal products, new omnivores invoke these same concepts to justify eating animals. New omnivorist views differ across a (...)
- Building multispecies resistance against exploitation: stories from the frontlines of labor and animal rights.Zane McNeill (ed.) - 2024 - New York: Peter Lang.This collection posits three questions. 1. What structures of violence and oppression are experienced and shared by human and nonhuman laborers working and dying in these necropolitical facilities? 2. If there is an intersection between class and species, which, in turn incorporates race, gender, abilities, and other categories of oppression, in which ways is the contemporary animal advocacy nonprofit sector reifying or disrupting these hierarchies in its mission towards animal liberation? 3. If there are classist and racist biases in Animal (...)
- History, Knowledge, and Organization: Beyond Animal Rights Vanguardism.Nico Dario Müller - 2024 - Politics and Animals 10:1-14.This paper identifies an overlooked but widespread philosophical view in the animal rights movement, Animal Rights Vanguardism. This is the view that (1) the arc of history, by way of ever-increasing moral awareness, bends towards animal liberation,(2) animal rights activists are aware of the moral truth when it comes to human-animal relations thanks to a moral-epistemic privilege, and (3) the primary moral imperative for animal rights activists is to increase the moral awareness of the masses. The paper then makes four (...)Remove from this listExport citationBookmark
- The Counterproductiveness Argument against Animal Rights Violence.Nico Müller & Friderike Spang - 2024 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 41 (5):827-845.Arguments against inflicting violence on people to defend animal rights have relied on the view that inflicting violence is always wrong. But these arguments end up prohibiting too much, as defensive violence should be permissible in certain extreme cases. We argue that considerations about the counterproductiveness of defensive violence are better at distinguishing permissible and impermissible instances of animal rights violence than a blanket rejection of violence. We respond to the objection that assuming violence to be counterproductive is ad hoc, (...)
| 1 — 50 / 1071 |
Try MATCHA Writer if you're interested in citing directly from PhilPapers and certifying your authorship.
This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see our terms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications). Use of this site is subject to terms & conditions.
All rights reserved by The PhilPapers Foundation