Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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]
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]
It states that nature does not exist simply to be used or consumed by humans, but that humans are simply one species amongst many, [6] and that because we are part of an ecosystem, any actions which negatively affect the living systems of which we are a part adversely affect us as well, [6] [7] whether or not we maintain a biocentric worldview. [6]
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 ...
Sapontzis also investigates the issue of wild animal suffering and whether humans have an obligation to help these animals. He questions the view that aiding these individuals is ridiculous or absurd, instead arguing that if we have the means to help an individual suffering in such a situation, we should do so; as long as we do not inflict a ...
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 ...
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]