DOCSLIB.ORG

Module #2 – Sun & Planets

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Module #2 – Sun & Planets 1 – Hunting – A balanced perspective Module # 4 – Component # 1 International Anti-Hunting NGO's The content that follows was written by Charl F. Badenhorst and was derived from his Masters Degree Thesis in Philosophy (Applied Ethics) completed under the Unit for Environmental Ethics at the University of Stellenbosch. The views of Charl Badenhorst do not necessarily represent those of WildlifeCampus, it’s management or staff. Introduction Following the discussion of groups arguing in favour of trophy hunting in Modules # 2 and # 3, I now turn to those who argue against hunting in all of its recreational forms. Included in this Module are those groups who take a position against hunting on preservationist grounds. Preservationists assume little or no human interference in natural ecosystems and wildlife areas, with the aim of protecting them from harmful human activity.1 Furthermore, they assume the ability of the environment to regenerate itself if allowed to do so according to a natural balance. The positions include arguments from the perspectives of intrinsic value theory, ecocentrism, deep ecology, utilitarian value theory, ecofeminism, animal rights and animal liberation. The main aim of the following groups is to protect what is regarded as the rights of animals, and to preserve biodiversity for future generations. Like the main conservation organisations outlined in the previous Module, the conservation of wildlife and wild areas is also of a primary concern to these groups, yet the manner in which this must be achieved is regarded as being fundamentally different. In general, the consumptive use and exploitation of the environment is opposed, as is the killing of animals in any form. Hunting is opposed, and rejected as a valid conservation tool, as it is seen as a mere pretext to validate the desire to kill animals. 1 Passmore 1974: 101. Hunting – A balanced perspective © Copyright This course material is the copyrighted intellectual property of WildlifeCampus. It may not be copied, distributed or reproduced in any format whatsoever without the express written permission of WildlifeCampus 2 – Hunting – A balanced perspective In general, the value system which surrounds the hunting culture and on which it is based is questioned as being morally dubious, the moral arguments in favour of hunting are regarded as being inherently flawed, and those from conservation perspectives as either not universally applicable, or overstated. There are also many individuals who oppose trophy hunting in their personal capacity, and who are not aligned with the groups discussed in this Component. Gareth Patterson, for example, actively opposes trophy hunting yet is not officially affiliated to the main groups discussed here. His much publicised book, Dying to Be Free: The Canned Lion Scandal and the Case for Ending Trophy Hunting in Africa, is a prominent work in the South African context that articulates many of the concerns that the anti- hunting groups have. It focuses specifically on the issue of canned hunting in South Africa, and as such he could be included as an important role player within the southern African anti-hunting community. Hunting – A balanced perspective © Copyright This course material is the copyrighted intellectual property of WildlifeCampus. It may not be copied, distributed or reproduced in any format whatsoever without the express written permission of WildlifeCampus 3 – Hunting – A balanced perspective International Anti-Hunting NGOs The main international organisations involved in the hunting debate identified here are those who are most vocal against trophy hunting, and who offer the most vigorous arguments against the practice. They are therefore also the most influential in terms of lobbying against the practice, through their attempts to mobilise public sympathy to oppose what they regard as the exploitation of animals. The three organisations discussed in this section, namely People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), and The Fund for Animals (FFA), are international NGOs and are vehemently opposed to any forms of hunting, and particularly protest against SCI for example. They argue primarily from animal rights and animal liberation viewpoints. When SCI and other hunting organisations use the word “anti’s” and refer to anti-hunters and animal rights groups in general terms, they specifically have these three groups in mind.2 Also, the groups identified here do not apportion differing degrees of morality or ethical justification to different categorical types of hunting but ascribe equal moral condemnation to all forms of hunting that are recreational in origin. As such, they unilaterally condemn all recreational hunters no matter what categorical type of hunting they practice, and the concepts hunter or hunters are generally conceptualised in pejorative terms. 2 The Humane Society, PETA, and The Fund for Animals are mentioned on the website of Conservation Force under the link “The Bad Guys” (Conservation Force 2003c). Hunting – A balanced perspective © Copyright This course material is the copyrighted intellectual property of WildlifeCampus. It may not be copied, distributed or reproduced in any format whatsoever without the express written permission of WildlifeCampus 4 – Hunting – A balanced perspective The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) Founded in 1954, the Humane Society of the United States is primarily an organisation dedicated to animal protectionism, and with over seven million members and constituents it claims to be the world’s largest.3 It was founded by the President of the American Bible Society, Coleman Burke, as a “religious ministry” for animals with the mission of “Promoting the Protection of all Animals”.4 As such, it ascribes to a stewardship view towards nature, whereby man is viewed as having a biblical mandate and obligation to protect and look after the earth’s creatures; and its stated goal is to ensure the “ethical stewardship of wildlife and its environment”.5 HSUS began more as an animal welfare organisation than a strictly animal rights organisation, and although the lines aren’t that clearly defined in their policy and documentation, it was more moderate in its views and less sensationalistic in its activism than groups like PETA,6 for example. In 1980, however, it began shifting its focus from animal welfare to animal rights, and John McArdle, one of HSUS’s directors, is quoted as saying that they were “definitely shifting in the direction of animal rights faster than anyone would realise from our literature”.7 The animal rights movement has therefore had a discernible influence on its policies, which is admitted to by one of its former presidents John Hoyt.8 The correlation between its philosophy and that of the Fund for Animals (FFA) could be regarded as very similar, as one of its co-founders is Cleveland Amory, who was the founder and president of the Fund for Animals, which is a decidedly animal rightist organisation.9 The Society is U.S. based, with affiliates worldwide, and has been officially recognised by the United Nations to negotiate for animals in global forums.10 The HSUS believes that humans have a moral obligation to protect the animals whose habitat we share, and to prevent the suffering inflicted on animals as a result of human activity and encroachment.11 Their vision is of a world where “people satisfy the physical and emotional needs of domestic animals; protect wild animals and their environments; and change their relationships with all animals, evolving from exploitation and harm to respect and compassion”. Compassion towards animals and a belief in their intrinsic value is a central principle, and as such they are vehemently opposed to any exploitation of them by humans.12 3 HSUS 2003c. 4 Christensen 2001. 5 The National Shooting Sports Foundation 2001: 8. 6 People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is discussed in a sub-section below. 7 The Centre for Consumer Freedom 2003. 8 The Centre for Consumer Freedom 2003. 9 The Fund for Animals (FFA) is discussed in the next sub-section. 10 HSUS 2003c. 11 The National Shooting Sports Foundation 2001: 8. 12 HSUS 2003a. Hunting – A balanced perspective © Copyright This course material is the copyrighted intellectual property of WildlifeCampus. It may not be copied, distributed or reproduced in any format whatsoever without the express written permission of WildlifeCampus 5 – Hunting – A balanced perspective Their work is broadly focused on a variety of animal issues such as over-population, exploitation, animal research, the consumptive use of animals, and wildlife. A variety of methods deemed to be the most effective in combating these practices are used, be it through investigation, rehabilitation, education, political or consumer advocacy, or litigation. As the practice of sport hunting is a most obvious example of the consumptive use and exploitation of wildlife it has naturally come under extreme fire by the HSUS. The reason for this is because HSUS regards animals as being sentient creatures with intrinsic value and moral standing, and regards humans as being responsible for preventing the infliction of pain, suffering and death on animals. As such, it is “strongly opposed to the hunting of any living creature for fun, trophy, or for sport” as doing so is inhumane because of the needless pain, suffering, death and trauma it causes to animals.13 Regardless of the methods used, HSUS views sport hunting14 as being “fundamentally at odds with the values of a humane, just and caring society”.15 Furthermore, the characterisation of wild animals as “game” is regarded as denying the intrinsic value and belittling the ecological importance of animals,16 and HSUS opposes the duplicity inherent in cases where wildlife is allegedly killed for management purposes, yet in reality is killed as “game” for recreational purposes. They strongly object to the fact that wildlife areas in the United States are controlled and manipulated for the benefit of hunters; in that various policies, research, and management programmes are geared towards providing animals for hunters to shoot, at the expense of non- “game” species.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Animal Rights Movement in Theory and Practice: a Review of the Sociological Literature Lyle Munro* School of Applied Media and Social Sciences, Monash University
    Sociology Compass 6/2 (2012): 166–181, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00440.x The Animal Rights Movement in Theory and Practice: A Review of the Sociological Literature Lyle Munro* School of Applied Media and Social Sciences, Monash University Abstract Traditionally, philosophers have had most to say about the ethics of our treatment of non-human animals (hereafter animals); it is only in recent years that social scientists have engaged with issues concerning humans and other animals. However, in the sociological literature and more generally in the emerging field of Human–Animal Studies (HAS), evidence of interest in the animal protec- tion movement is slight. This review of Eliasian theory, Marxist realism, feminism, ecofeminism, and social constructionist theory – along with key activist approaches to animal activism and advo- cacy – indicates the theoretical richness of the topic that is nonetheless empirically poor. The ani- mal protection movement is referred to here simply as the animal movement or where appropriate, as one of its three strands – animal welfare, animal liberation and animal rights. The article concludes with a discussion of how social movement theory (the ‘why’) and practice (the ‘how’) might be enhanced by social movement scholars working in collaboration with animal acti- vists. Introduction A number of writers including Tovey (2003), Hobson-West (2007), and Irvine (2008) have recently drawn attention to the rare appearance of human–animal topics in social science texts. Work in the field of Human–Animal Studies (HAS) has mainly been con- fined to specialist journals and more recently to edited anthologies of previously published articles (Arluke and Sanders 2009; Flynn 2008; Wilkie and Inglis 2007).
    [Show full text]
  • Society Register
    ISSN 2544-5502 SOCIETY REGISTER 3 (3) 2019 Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan ISSN 2544-5502 SOCIETY REGISTER 3 (3) 2019 Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan SOCIETY REGISTER 2019 / Vol. 3, No. 3 ISSN: 2544-5502 | DOI: 10.14746/sr EDITORIAL TEAM: Mariusz Baranowski (Editor-in-Chief), Marcos A. Bote (Social Policy Editor), Piotr Cichocki (Quantitative Research Editor), Sławomir Czapnik (Political Science Editor), Piotr Jabkowski (Statistics Editor), Mark D. Juszczak (International Relations), Agnieszka Kanas (Stratification and Inequality Editor), Magdalena Lemańczyk (Anthropology Editor), Urszula Markowska-Manista (Educational Sciences Editor), Bartosz Mika (Sociology of Work Editor), Kamalini Mukherjee (English language Editor), Krzysztof Nowak-Posadzy (Philoso- phy Editor), Anna Odrowąż-Coates (Deputy Editor-in-Chief), Aneta Piektut (Migration Editor). POLISH EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS: Agnieszka Gromkowska-Melosik, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań (Poland); Kazimierz Krzysztofek, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities (Poland); Roman Leppert, Kazimierz Wielki University (Poland); Renata Nowakowska-Siuta, ChAT (Poland); Inetta Nowosad, University of Zielona Góra (Poland); Ewa Przybylska, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń (Poland); Piotr Sałustowicz, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities (Poland); Bogusław Śliwerski, University of Lodz (Poland); Aldona Żurek, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań (Poland). INTERNATIONAL EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS: Tony Blackshaw, Sheffield Hallam University (United King- dom); Theodore Chadjipadelis, Aristotle University Thessaloniki (Greece); Kathleen J. Farkas, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (US); Sribas Goswami, Serampore College, University of Calcutta (India); Bozena Hautaniemi, Stockholm University (Sweden); Kamel Lahmar, University of Sétif 2 (Algeria); Georg Kam- phausen, University of Bayreuth (Germany); Nina Michalikova, University of Central Oklahoma (US); Jaroslaw Richard Romaniuk, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (US); E.
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Welfare in Australia: Politics and Policy, Published by Sydney University Press
    This document is an extract from Animal Welfare in Australia: Politics and Policy, published by Sydney University Press. ISBN: 9781743324738 (paperback) 9781743324745 (ebook: epub) 9781743325025 (ebook: PDF) All requests for reproduction or communication should be made to Sydney University Press at the address below: Sydney University Press Fisher Library F03 University of Sydney NSW 2006 AUSTRALIA [email protected] sydney.edu.au/sup Parts of this work are available on the University of Sydney eScholarship Repository at hdl.handle.net/2123/15349. Please cite the full work as: Chen, Peter John (2016). Animal Welfare in Australia: Politics and Policy. Sydney: Sydney University Press. The book may be purchased from Sydney University Press at the following link: http://purl.library.usyd.edu.au/sup/animalwelfareinaus. Animal welfare in Australia ANIMAL PUBLICS Melissa Boyde & Fiona Probyn-Rapsey, Series Editors Other titles in the series: Animal death Ed. Jay Johnston & Fiona Probyn-Rapsey Animals in the Anthropocene: critical perspectives on non-human futures Ed. The Human Animal Research Network Editorial Collective Cane toads: a tale of sugar, politics and flawed science Nigel Turvey Engaging with animals: interpretations of a shared existence Ed. Georgette Leah Burns & Mandy Paterson Fighting nature: travelling menageries, animal acts and war shows Peta Tait Animal welfare in Australia Policy and politics Peter John Chen First published by Sydney University Press © Peter John Chen 2016 © Sydney University Press 2016 Reproduction and Communication for other purposes Except as permitted under the Act, no part of this edition may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or communicated in any form or by any means without prior written permission.
    [Show full text]
  • A Defense of a Sentiocentric Approach to Environmental Ethics
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 8-2012 Minding Nature: A Defense of a Sentiocentric Approach to Environmental Ethics Joel P. MacClellan University of Tennessee, Knoxville, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss Part of the Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation MacClellan, Joel P., "Minding Nature: A Defense of a Sentiocentric Approach to Environmental Ethics. " PhD diss., University of Tennessee, 2012. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/1433 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a dissertation written by Joel P. MacClellan entitled "Minding Nature: A Defense of a Sentiocentric Approach to Environmental Ethics." I have examined the final electronic copy of this dissertation for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, with a major in Philosophy. John Nolt, Major Professor We have read this dissertation and recommend its acceptance: Jon Garthoff, David Reidy, Dan Simberloff Accepted for the Council: Carolyn R. Hodges Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) MINDING NATURE: A DEFENSE OF A SENTIOCENTRIC APPROACH TO ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS A Dissertation Presented for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree The University of Tennessee, Knoxville Joel Patrick MacClellan August 2012 ii The sedge is wither’d from the lake, And no birds sing.
    [Show full text]
  • A Study of Problematisations in the Live Export Policy Debates
    ANIMAL CRUELTY, DISCOURSE, AND POWER: A STUDY OF PROBLEMATISATIONS IN THE LIVE EXPORT POLICY DEBATES Brodie Lee Evans Bachelor of Arts (Politics, Economy, and Society; Literary Studies) Bachelor of Justice (First Class Honours) Graduate Certificate in Business (Accounting) A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Queensland University of Technology 2018 School of Justice | Faculty of Law This page intentionally left blank Statement of Originality Under the Copyright Act 1968, this thesis must be used only under the normal conditions of scholarly fair dealing. In particular, no results or conclusions should be extracted from it, nor should it be copied or closely paraphrased in whole or in part without the written consent of the author. Proper written acknowledgement should be made for any assistance obtained from this thesis. The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made. Brodie Evans QUT Verified Signature ……………………………………………………………………….. Signature October 2018 ……………………………………………………………………….. Date i Dedication For Scottie. ii Abstract Since the release of video footage exposing the treatment of animals in the live export industry in 2011, ‘animal cruelty’ has increasingly been a major concern in mainstream Australian discourse. Critiques over the inadequacy of current legal protections afforded to animals have had a significant impact on how we debate animal welfare issues and the solutions to them.
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Abuse As a Sentinel for Human Violence: a Critique ∗ Emily G
    Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 65, No. 3, 2009, pp. 589--614 Animal Abuse as a Sentinel for Human Violence: A Critique ∗ Emily G. Patterson-Kane American Veterinary Medical Association Heather Piper Manchester Metropolitan University It has been suggested that acts of violence against human and nonhuman an- imals share commonalities, and that animal abuse is a sentinel for current or future violence toward people. The popular and professional acceptance of strong connections between types of violence is beginning to be used to justify social work interventions and to influence legal decision making, and so requires greater scrutiny. Examination of the limited pool of empirical data suggests that animal abuse is relatively common among men, with violent offenders having an increased probability of reporting prior animal abuse—with the majority of violent offend- ers not reporting any animal abuse. Causal explanations for “the link,” such as empathy impairment or conduct disorder, suffer from a lack of validating research and, based on research into interhuman violence, the assumption that violence has a predominant, single underlying cause must be questioned. An (over)emphasis on the danger that animal abusers pose to humans serves to assist in achieving a consensus that animal abuse is a serious issue, but potentially at the cost of failing to focus on the most common types of abuse, and the most effective strategies for reducing its occurrence. Nothing in this review and discussion should be taken as minimizing the importance of animals as frequent victims of violence, or the co-occurrence of abuse types in “at-risk” households.
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Advocacy and the Regulation of Science
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE Taking Root: Animal Advocacy and the Regulation of Science DISSERTATION submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Sociology by Erin M. Evans Dissertation Committee: Professor David S. Meyer, Chair Professor Edwin Amenta Professor Ann Hironaka Professor Yang Su Professor Claire J. Kim 2016 © 2016 Erin M. Evans DEDICATION To My Mom, Kathy Livie-Evans, who is missed every day. If I can stop one heart from breaking, I shall not live in vain; If I can easy one life the aching, Or cool one pain, Or help one fainting robin Unto his nest again, I shall not live in vain. Emily Dickinson ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES iv LIST OF TABLES v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS vi CURRICULUM VITAE vii ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION viii INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER 1: Institutionalizing Animal “Subject” Protection in Research 11 CHAPTER 2: Stumbling Blocks or Stepping Stones? The Problems and Promises of Policy Reform for the Animal Advocacy Movement 46 CHAPTER 3: Spokes in the Wheel: The Effects of Policy Reform on Consequent Mobilization 81 CHAPTER 4: Aggressive Extra-institutional Protest and the “Good Cop, Bad Cop” Effect 121 CONCLUSION 156 BIBLIOGRAPHY 164 ENDNOTES 175 iii LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1 Attitudes Towards Scientists’ Treatment of Animals in Research 36 Figure 2 Amount of Guidelines in National Institute of Health Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. 62 Figure 3 Cost of Animal Care Per Day 63 Figure 4 Total Number of References in The Guide 76 Figure 5 Organizational Growth 99 Figure 6 Organizational Identity 100 Figure 7 Clandestine Militant Direct Actions 101 Figure 8 Animal Advocacy SMO Mentions in NYT 101 Figure 9 Coverage of Protest Events and Transgressive Actvity in NYT 102 iv LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1 Causal Mechanisms for Change 53 Table 2 Participant Descriptives- All 60 Table 3 Participant Descriptives- Activists 97 v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish I could appropriately thank each person who has ever encouraged me to do more than I thought could do.
    [Show full text]
  • Whither Rights? Animal Rights and the Rise of New Welfarism
    Whither rights? Animal rights and the rise of new welfarism Nicola Taylor he notion of an animal rights movement is one which has the potential to mislead since those fighting for animals come T from a variety of different ideological backgrounds and advocate many different ways to achieve many different aims. Gary Francione1 argues that animal rights have become subsumed in what he terms ‘new welfarism’. New welfarism is a hybrid approach which advocates more ‘traditional’ welfarist aims in the short term with the ultimate goal being one of animal rights and animal liberation in the long term. It is a sort of ‘crisis management’ whereby initial welfare problems are dealt with on a daily basis but the ultimate goal of liberating animals is never forgotten. Francione is critical of this ‘soft option’ and argues that to ever achieve anything the animal rights movement needs a return to its roots, ie. (direct) action towards the ultimate goal of total animal liberation and nothing else. This article takes issue with these sentiments and, based on three years of fieldwork within the animal rights community, argues that it may be the case that some of the larger animal rights charities have adopted this approach, but that the movement at the local activist level remains united in believing that direct action is the only method desirable or indeed effective in achieving its goal, which is one of complete animal liberation. The generic term ‘animal protectionism’ is perhaps a more apt and a more relevant one to explain the vast numbers of people concerned with issues of animal abuse, cruelty and rights today since these people often come from diverse ideological backgrounds.
    [Show full text]
  • A Sociological Examination of the Contemporary Animal Advocacy Movement: Organisations, Rationality and Veganism
    Department of Social Sciences and Asian Languages A Sociological Examination of the Contemporary Animal Advocacy Movement: Organisations, Rationality and Veganism Nick Pendergrast This thesis is presented for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy of Curtin University April 2014 i Statement of Authorship Declaration To the best of my knowledge and belief this thesis contains no material previously published by any other person except where due acknowledgment has been made.i This thesis contains no material that has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma in any university. Signature: …………………………………………. Date: ………………………... ii Table of Contents List of Figures .............................................................................................. vi List of Tables ...............................................................................................vii List of Appendices ...................................................................................... viii List of Abbreviations ....................................................................................ix Abstract ....................................................................................................... x Acknowledgements .....................................................................................xi Introduction ................................................................................................ 1 Animal Advocacy as a Social Movement ..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • THE VIVISECTION CONTROVERSY in AMERICA CLAUDIA ALONSO RECARTE Friends of Thoreau Environmental Program Franklin Institute, University of Alcalá
    THE VIVISECTION CONTROVERSY IN AMERICA CLAUDIA ALONSO RECARTE Friends of Thoreau Environmental Program Franklin Institute, University of Alcalá Guiding Students’ Discussion Scholars Debate Works Cited Links to Online Sources Acknowledgements & Illustration Credits MAIN PAGE Rabbit being used for experimental purposes. Courtesy of the New England Anti-Vivisection Society (NEAVS). MAIN PAGE 1. Introduction and Note on the Text Vivisection and animal experimentation constitute one of the institutionalized pillars of animal exploitation, and they bear a long history of political, ethical and social 1 controversies. Vivisection must not be considered as solely the moment in which an animal’s body is cut into; as will soon become evident, vivisection and animal experimentation include a whole array of procedures that are not limited to the act of severing (see Item 2 of the MAIN PAGE, hereinafter referred to as the MP), and should as well include as part of their signification the previous and subsequent conditions to the procedures in which the animals are in. It is quite difficult to ascertain the number of nonhuman others that are annually used in the United States for scientific and educational purposes, mainly due to the neglect in recording information regarding invertebrate specimens. According to the Last Chance for Animals website, the US Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service reported that in the year 2009 1.13 million animals were used in experiments. These numbers did not include rats, mice, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and agricultural animals used for agricultural experiments. To this, an estimate of 100 million rats and mice were added.
    [Show full text]
  • Moral Emotions and Social Activism: the Case of Animal Rights
    WellBeing International WBI Studies Repository 9-2009 Moral Emotions and Social Activism: The Case of Animal Rights Harold A. Herzog Western Carolina University Lauren L. Golden Western Carolina University Follow this and additional works at: https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/acwp_awap Part of the Animal Studies Commons, Civic and Community Engagement Commons, and the Politics and Social Change Commons Recommended Citation Herzog, H. A., & Golden, L. L. (2009). Moral emotions and social activism: The case of animal rights. Journal of Social Issues, 65(3), 485-498. This material is brought to you for free and open access by WellBeing International. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator of the WBI Studies Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Moral Emotions and Social Activism: The Case of Animal Rights Harold A. Herzog and Lauren L. Golden Western Carolina University Abstract. Why do some people and not others become involved in social movements? We examined the relationships between a moral emotion—disgust—and animal activism, attitudes toward animal welfare, and consumption of meat. Participants were recruited through two social networking websites and included animal activists, promoters of animal use, and participants not involved in animal-related causes. They took an online survey which included measures of sensitivity to visceral disgust, attitudes toward animal welfare, and frequency of meat eating. Animal activists were more sensitive to visceral disgust than were promoters of animal use or nonaligned participants. Disgust sensitivity was positively correlated with attitudes toward animal welfare but not with meat consumption. The relationship between animal activism and vegetarianism was complex; nearly half of animal activists ate meat, and half of the vegetarians did not consider themselves to be animal activists.
    [Show full text]
  • Is the Classification of Animals As Property Consistent with Modern Community Attitudes?
    1418 UNSW Law Journal Volume 41(4) IS THE CLASSIFICATION OF ANIMALS AS PROPERTY CONSISTENT WITH MODERN COMMUNITY ATTITUDES? GEETA SHYAM* Animals have legally been classified as property under Australian law, at least since colonialism. In recent times, however, the appropriateness of this legal status has come to be questioned. The debate between abolitionists and welfarists has become increasingly prominent; nevertheless the largely theoretical debate remains confined to the scholarly and legal world. This article reports on the results of an empirical study that took the issue to the Victorian public, measuring the level of awareness and agreement about the property status of animals. The study found that most people are unaware of the legal status of animals, and that the property status of at least some animals may not be consistent with contemporary attitudes. The results of the study further confirm that different kinds of animals are perceived differently, although they are rarely viewed as property. The findings enrich the abolitionist debate with empirical evidence while also highlighting educational opportunities. ‘It's not hard to make decisions when you know what your values are’.1 I INTRODUCTION In recent years we have seen a number of attempts by Australian lawmakers to bring to an end practices that are harmful to animals. This includes a ban on the live export of cattle2 and a ban on greyhound racing in New South Wales.3 Although the bans proved to be only temporary, the underlying triggers for the bans do suggest that society is becoming less tolerant of animal cruelty and more interested in ending practices that are patently harmful to animals.
    [Show full text]