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]
Daniel Dombrowski writes that the argument can be traced to Porphyry's third-century treatise On Abstinence from Eating Animals. [7] Danish philosopher Laurids Smith who was familiar with the arguments of Wilhelm Dietler argued against the idea that animals cannot possess rights because they cannot understand the ideas of right and duty.
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]
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 ...
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 ...
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]
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.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services, Margaret Heckler, after reading the same preliminary report, and after a four-day sit-in by animal rights activists at NIH, ordered the suspension of the annual $1 million NIH grant supporting the baboon research. [11] Several investigations and favorable assessments of the research have taken place.