Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Daniel Dombrowski writes that the argument can be traced to Porphyry's third-century treatise On Abstinence from Eating Animals. [7] Danish philosopher Laurids Smith who was familiar with the arguments of Wilhelm Dietler argued against the idea that animals cannot possess rights because they cannot understand the ideas of right and duty.
The vast majority of animals have no legally recognised rights. [12] Critics of animal rights argue that nonhuman animals are unable to enter into a social contract, and thus cannot have rights, a view summarised by the philosopher Roger Scruton, who writes that only humans have duties, and therefore only humans have rights. [13]
The Case for Animal Rights is a 1983 book by the American philosopher Tom Regan, in which the author argues that at least some kinds of non-human animals have moral rights because they are the "subjects-of-a-life", and that these rights adhere to them whether or not they are recognized. [1]
The Bronx Zoo case went to the New York Supreme Court, which held that nonhuman animals do not have habeus corpus rights. Animal cruelty laws currently exist. It would be useful to improve those ...
Former Rowan University philosophy professor Ioan-Radu Motoarcă argued that animals should have voting rights in a paper he wrote for the journal Analysis.
Arthur Schopenhauer was an early defender of animal rights. Arthur Schopenhauer was a 19th-century German philosopher. He was an early defender of animal rights, going against the prevailing idea at the time that animals had no rights and only had instrumental value to humans. According to Schopenhauer, "The assumption that animals are without ...
Steve Sapontzis, in his 1984 paper "Predation" argues against the idea that the problem of predation is a reductio ad absurdum for animal rights, instead, he claims that if we accept the view that we have an obligation to reduce avoidable animal suffering, then predation is something that we should work towards preventing if we can do so ...
'X has a right' if and only if X can have rights and, other things being equal, an aspect of X's well-being (his interest) is a sufficient reason for holding some other person(s) to be under a duty. [15] Cochrane draws out several aspects of this account, which serves as the basis of the analysis in Animal Rights Without Liberation.