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.
A proponent of gradual change, he formed Animal Rights International in 1974, and introduced the idea of "reintegrative shaming", whereby a relationship is formed between a group of animal rights advocates and a corporation they see as misusing animals, with a view to obtaining concessions or halting a practice.
Henry Spira founds Animal Rights International after attending a course on animal liberation given by Peter Singer. [31] 1975: Peter Singer publishes Animal Liberation, whose depictions of the conditions of animals on farms and in laboratories and utilitarian arguments for animal liberation are to have a major influence on the animal movement ...
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]
Just like humans have homes, animals also have places they live. The places where animals live are called habitats. Also, just as humans are all different and therefore live in different types of ...
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]
This argument holds that if marginal human beings such as infants, senile people, and the cognitively disabled are granted moral status and negative rights, then nonhuman animals must be granted the same moral consideration, since animals do not lack any known morally relevant characteristic that marginal-case humans have.