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]
A counter-argument is the argument from species normality (a term coined by David Graham), proposed by Tibor Machan. In considering the rights of children or disabled people, Machan uses the analogy of a broken chair: ... classifications and ascriptions of capacities rely on the good sense of making certain generalizations.
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]
Steve Sapontzis, in his 1984 paper "Predation" argues against the idea that the problem of predation is a reductio ad absurdum for animal rights, instead, he claims that if we accept the view that we have an obligation to reduce avoidable animal suffering, then predation is something that we should work towards preventing if we can do so ...
Publication of Gary Francione's Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement, arguing that there are significant theoretical and practical differences between the messaging of the animal rights advocacy, which he maintains requires the abolition of animal exploitation, and the messaging of animal welfare advocates, which ...
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]
I don't hold animals superior or even equal to humans. The whole case for behaving decently to animals rests on the fact that we are the superior species. We are the species uniquely capable of imagination, rationality and moral choice – and that is precisely why we are under the obligation to recognise and respect the rights of animals. [2]
Animal rights writer Henry S. Salt termed the replaceability argument the "logic of the larder".. In 1789, the utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham endorsed a variant of the argument, contending that painlessly killing a nonhuman animal is beneficial for everyone because it does not harm the animal and the consumers of the meat produced from the animal's body are better off as a result.