Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
There is a vigorous debate in animal ethics about the difference between animal welfare and the more ambitious agenda of animal rights. Both approaches ask critical questions about human treatment ...
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]
That is why a cow has no rights, though a human being reduced to the mental level of a cow does have them. There's something wrong with the human; there's nothing wrong with the cow. One might say that in the case of the cow-minded human, there's a blank spot where her moral agency is supposed to be, and someone else can step into that blank ...
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]
Former Rowan University philosophy professor Ioan-Radu Motoarcă argued that animals should have voting rights in a paper he wrote for the journal Analysis.
Advocates of animal rights believe that many or all sentient animals have moral worth that is independent of their utility for humans, and that their most basic interests—such as in avoiding suffering—should be afforded the same consideration as similar interests of human beings.
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 ...
The last question virtually assumes that they have equal rights with man. On the other hand, some can defend animal rights of a certain kind without including a prohibition of animal food. Then, independently of all questions of rights, others may insist on human conduct towards animals upon the grounds of man's duty to moral law in general. [3]