Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A proponent of gradual change, he formed Animal Rights International in 1974, and introduced the idea of "reintegrative shaming", whereby a relationship is formed between a group of animal rights advocates and a corporation they see as misusing animals, with a view to obtaining concessions or halting a practice.
Among the fifty-two Encyclopedia entries, The Case of the Animals versus Man is the longest and the only one presented as a fable. [28] In the early fourteenth century, the story was translated into Hebrew as Igeret Baale Haim by Kalonymus ben Kalonymus. [24] The Hebrew version has been translated and adapted into English for a popular audience ...
The animal rights movement, sometimes called the animal liberation, animal personhood, or animal advocacy movement, is a social movement that advocates an end to the rigid moral and legal distinction drawn between human and non-human animals, an end to the status of animals as property, and an end to their use in the research, food, clothing, and entertainment industries.
Animals, Men and Morals: An Inquiry into the Maltreatment of Non-humans (1971) is a collection of essays on animal rights, edited by Oxford philosophers Stanley and Roslind Godlovitch, both from Canada, and John Harris from the UK.
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
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.
Henry S. Salt included Gompertz's book in his bibliography of animal rights, within his 1892 work Animals' Rights: Considered in Relation to Social Progress. [2] Gary L. Francione and Anne E. Charlton describe the book as "one of the most progressive and radical books on animal ethics ever written, yet is virtually unknown". [3]
The last question virtually assumes that they have equal rights with man. On the other hand, some can defend animal rights of a certain kind without including a prohibition of animal food. Then, independently of all questions of rights, others may insist on human conduct towards animals upon the grounds of man's duty to moral law in general. [3]