Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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]
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.
Actor, animal rights activist, narrator of Earthlings (2005) and Dominion (2018) [129] James Rachels: 1941–2003 United States Philosopher [130] Tom Regan: 1938–2017 United States Professor emeritus of philosophy at North Carolina State University, author of The Case for Animal Rights (1983) [131] Qiu Renzong: ca. 1933 China: Bioethicist [132]
Steven M. Wise (December 19, 1950 – February 15, 2024) was an American lawyer and legal scholar who specialized in animal rights, primatology, and animal intelligence.He taught animal rights law at Harvard Law School, Vermont Law School, John Marshall Law School, Lewis & Clark Law School, Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine, and at the Master’s in Animal Law and Society of the ...
[3] [5] He noted that zoo animals are protected from predation. [6] [7] Tzachi Zamir has described the book as an attempt to "forge a link between an animal-right perspective and a welfare-based argument for the existence of (good) zoos". [8] Bostock assigned moral rights to animals as they are conscious beings. [5] He rejected utilitarianism. [9]
Counter-arguments include that first-order beliefs may be held in the absence of second-order ones – that is, a non-human animal or human infant might hold a belief while failing to understand the concept of belief — and that human beings could not have developed language in the first place without some pre-verbal beliefs. [2]
Animal rights writer Henry S. Salt termed the replaceability argument the "logic of the larder".. In 1789, the utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham endorsed a variant of the argument, contending that painlessly killing a nonhuman animal is beneficial for everyone because it does not harm the animal and the consumers of the meat produced from the animal's body are better off as a result.
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]