Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The animal rights movement, sometimes called the animal liberation, animal personhood, or animal advocacy movement, is a social movement that advocates an end to the rigid moral and legal distinction drawn between human and non-human animals, an end to the status of animals as property, and an end to their use in the research, food, clothing, and entertainment industries.
Animals, Men and Morals: An Inquiry into the Maltreatment of Non-humans (1971) is a collection of essays on animal rights, edited by Oxford philosophers Stanley and Roslind Godlovitch, both from Canada, and John Harris from the UK.
Henry S. Salt included Gompertz's book in his bibliography of animal rights, within his 1892 work Animals' Rights: Considered in Relation to Social Progress. [2] Gary L. Francione and Anne E. Charlton describe the book as "one of the most progressive and radical books on animal ethics ever written, yet is virtually unknown". [3]
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
It is often said that Marx conceived of humans as homo faber, referring to Benjamin Franklin's definition of "man as the tool-making animal" – that is, as "man, the maker", [25] though he never used the term himself. It is generally held that Marx's view was that productive activity is an essential human activity, and can be rewarding when ...
In the animal rights movement, it is common to distinguish between "human animals" and "non-human animals". Participants in the animal rights movement generally recognize that non-human animals have some similar characteristics to those of human persons. For example, various non-human animals have been shown to register pain, compassion, memory ...
Animal rights is the philosophy according to which many or all sentient animals have moral worth independent of their utility to humans, and that their most basic interests—such as avoiding suffering—should be afforded the same consideration as similar interests of human beings. [2]
James H. Hyslop reviewed the book contemporaneously for the International Journal of Ethics, strongly praising the book's intentions "its spirit shows the finest feelings a moral being can possess" but also arguing that it failed to present a theoretical justification for the equal rights it presumes between humans and animals: "No fundamental position, philosophical or theological, is taken ...