Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A common misconception about animal rights is that its proponents want to grant nonhuman animals the same legal rights as humans, such as the right to vote. This is false. Rather, the idea is that animals should have rights that accord with their interests (for example, cats have no interest in voting, and so should not have the right to vote ...
Proponents of rights of nature argue that, just as human rights have been recognized increasingly in law, so should nature's rights be recognized and incorporated into human ethics and laws. [3] This claim is underpinned by two lines of reasoning: that the same ethics that justify human rights, also justify nature's rights, and, that humans ...
Taylor was a critic of animal rights and he held the view that only humans have moral rights. He argued that animals and plants cannot have rights because they lack certain capacities for exercising them. [1] Despite this, his biocentric outlook asserted that humans are not superior to wild animals or plants and they all have inherent worth. [1]
Animal ethics is a branch of ethics which examines human-animal relationships, the moral consideration of animals and how nonhuman animals ought to be treated. The subject matter includes animal rights, animal welfare, animal law, speciesism, animal cognition, wildlife conservation, wild animal suffering, [1] the moral status of nonhuman animals, the concept of nonhuman personhood, human ...
Edward Nicholson (1849–1912), head of the Bodleian Library at the University of Oxford, argued in Rights of an Animal (1879) that animals have the same natural right to life and liberty that human beings do, disregarding Descartes' mechanistic view—or what he called the "Neo-Cartesian snake"—that they lack consciousness. [66]
The argument from marginal cases (also known as the argument from species overlap) [1] is a philosophical argument within animal rights theory regarding the moral status of non-human animals. Its proponents hold that if human infants, senile people, the comatose, and cognitively disabled people have direct moral status, non-human animals must ...
Similarly, Peter Singer argues that non-human animals deserve the same equality of consideration that we extend to human beings. [10] His argument is roughly as follows: Membership in the species Homo sapiens is the only criterion of moral importance that includes all humans and excludes all non-humans.
Animal rights proponents argue that all animals have inherent rights, similar to human rights, and should not be used as means to human ends. Unlike animal welfare advocates, who focus on minimizing suffering, animal rights supporters often call for the total abolition of practices that exploit animals, such as intensive animal farming, animal ...