Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
An Essay on Humanity to Animals is a 1798 book by English theologian Thomas Young. It advocates for the ethical treatment and welfare of animals. It argues for recognising animals' natural rights and condemns the various forms of cruelty inflicted upon them in human activities. Drawing on moral, scriptural, and philosophical reasoning, Young ...
"The Meat Eaters" is a 2010 essay by the American philosopher Jeff McMahan, published as an op-ed in The New York Times.In the essay, McMahan asserts that humans have a moral obligation to stop eating meat and, in a conclusion considered to be controversial, that humans also have a duty to prevent predation by individuals who belong to carnivorous species, if we can do so without inflicting ...
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]
In recent years, versions of the argument have been put forward by Peter Singer, [9] Tom Regan, [10] Evelyn Pluhar, [11] and Oscar Horta. [5] James Rachels has argued that the theory of evolution implies that there is only a gradient between humans and other animals, and therefore marginal-case humans should be considered similar to non-human ...
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 ...
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.
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.
He campaigned for the welfare of animals and the ethical necessity of a vegetarian diet. [3] Ritson spent years collecting information for the book. [4] He argued that animal food is cruel, unnecessary and the result of provocative cannibalism. Ritson believed that man's only chance of happiness is to develop higher moral virtues of benevolence ...