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]
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.
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. [2] 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 ...
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 ...
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 ...
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 ...
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]
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]