DOCSLIB.ORG

Animals & Ethics Bibliography

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Animals & Ethics Bibliography Animals and Ethics (FA) 3/16/09 10:43 AM Page 187 Review Copy BIBLIOGRAPHY, INCLUDING WORKS CITED The following bibliography includes works cited in the text, as well as others relevant to the topic of the moral status of animals. Most of the works listed can be classed as philosophy; the rest deal in one way or another with matters that bear on the philosophical debate. While exten- sive, this bibliography is not intended to be comprehensive. All works listed are in English, with one exception. Material that has appeared only in electronic form is not included, but many journal articles listed can be accessed on-line. Aaltola, Elisa. 2002. “‘Other Animal Ethics’ and the Demand for Difference”, Environmental Values 11: 193-209. ––––––––– . 2005. “Animal Ethics and Interest Conflicts”, Ethics & the Environment 10, no. 1: 19-48. ––––––––– . 2008. “Personhood and Animals”, Environmental Ethics 30: 175-93. Aaltola, Elisa, and Markku Oksanen. 2002. “Species Conservation and Minority Rights: The Case of Springtime Bird Hunting in Åland”, Environmental Values 11: 443-60. Abbey, Ruth. 2007. “Rawlsian Resources for Animal Ethics”, Ethics & the Environment 12, no. 1: 1-22. Acampora, Ralph R. 2005. “Zoos and Eyes: Contesting Captivity and Seeking Successor Practices”, Society and Animals 13: 69-88. ––––––––– . 2006. Corporal Compassion: Animal Ethics and Philosophy of Body. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Adams, Carol J. 1994. Neither Man nor Beast: Feminism and the Defense of Animals. New York: Continuum. –––––––––.1997. “‘Mad Cow’ Disease and the Animal Industrial Complex: An Ecofeminist Analysis”, Organization & Environment 10: 26-51. 187 Animals and Ethics (FA) 3/16/09 10:43 AM Page 188 Review Copy ANIMALS AND ETHICS ––––––––– . 2000. The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory, 10th-anniversary ed. New York: Continuum. ––––––––– . 2004. The Pornography of Meat. New York: Continuum. ––––––––– . 2006. “‘A Very Rare and Difficult Thing’: Ecofeminism, Attention to Animal Suffering, and the Disappearance of the Subject”,in Paul Waldau and Kimberley Patton, eds., A Communion of Subjects: Animals in Religion, Science, and Ethics. New York: Columbia University Press. Adams, Carol J., and Josephine Donovan, eds. 1995. Animals and Women: Feminist Theoretical Explorations. Durham: Duke University Press. Aitken, Gill. 2008. “Animal Suffering: An Evolutionary Approach”, Environmental Values 17: 165-80. Allen, Colin. 1996. “Star Witness”,in Joel Feinberg, ed., Reason and Responsibility: Readings in Some Basic Problems of Philosophy, 9th ed. Belmont: Wadsworth. ––––––––– . 2004. “Animal Pain”, Noûs 38: 617-43. Allen, Colin, and Marc Bekoff. 2007. “Animal Minds, Cognitive Ethology, and Ethics”, The Journal of Ethics 11: 299-317. Almeida, Michael J., and Mark H. Bernstein. 2000. “Opportunistic Carnivorism”, Journal of Applied Philosophy 17: 205-11. Alward, Peter. 2000. “The Naïve Argument against Moral Vegetarianism”, Environmental Values 9: 81-89. Anderson, Elizabeth. 2004. “Animal Rights and the Values of Nonhuman Life”, in Cass R. Sunstein and Martha C. Nussbaum, eds., Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions. New York: Oxford University Press. Andrews, Kristin. 1996. “The First Step in the Case for Great Ape Equality: The Argument for Other Minds”, Etica & Animali 8: 131-41. Aquinas, Thomas. 1945. Basic Writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas, vol. 2. Ed. by Anton C. Pegis. New York: Random House. See “Summa Contra Gentiles”, bk. 3, chap. 111-113, pp. 219-24. Aristotle. 1927. The Works of Aristotle. London: Oxford University Press. See vol. 9, “Ethica Nicomachea”,bk. 8; and vol. 10, “Politica”,bk. 1. Arluke, Arnold, and Clinton R. Sanders. 1996. Regarding Animals. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Armstrong, Susan J., and Richard G. Botzler, eds. 2008. The Animal Ethics Reader, 2nd ed. Abingdon: Routledge. Austin, Jack. 1979. “Buddhist Attitudes towards Animal Life”,in David 188 Animals and Ethics (FA) 3/16/09 10:43 AM Page 189 Review Copy BIBLIOGRAPHY, INCLUDING WORKS CITED Paterson and Richard D. Ryder, eds., Animals’ Rights: A Symposium. London: Centaur Press. Auxter, Thomas. 1979. “The Right Not to Be Eaten”, Inquiry 22: 221-30. Bailey, Cathryn. 2005. “On the Backs of Animals: The Valorization of Reason in Contemporary Animal Ethics”, Ethics & the Environment 10, no. 1: 1-17. Baird, Robert M., and Stuart E. Rosenbaum, eds. 1991. Animal Experimentation: The Moral Issues. Buffalo: Prometheus. Baker, Steve. 1993. Picturing the Beast: Animals, Identity, and Representation. Manchester: Manchester University Press. ––––––––– . 2000. The Postmodern Animal. London: Reaktion. Baldwin, Elizabeth. 1993. “The Case for Animal Research in Psychology”, Journal of Social Issues 49: 121-31. Barad, Judith. 1995. Aquinas on the Nature and Treatment of Animals.San Francisco: International Scholars Publications. Barad-Andrade, Judith. 1992. “The Dog in the Lifeboat Revisited”, Between the Species 8: 114-17. Barber, J. 1997. “Trapped”,in Eldon Soifer, ed., Ethical Issues: Perspectives for Canadians, 2nd ed. Peterborough: Broadview Press. Barnard, Neal D., and Stephen R. Kaufman. 1997. “Animal Research Is Wasteful and Misleading”, Scientific American 276, no. 2: 80-82. Bartkowski, Frances. 2008. Kissing Cousins: A New Kinship Bestiary.New York: Columbia University Press. Beers, Diane L. 2006. For the Prevention of Cruelty: The History and Legacy of Animal Rights Activism is the United States. Athens, Ohio: Swallow Press. Beisecker, David. 2002. “Some More Thoughts about Thought and Talk: Davidson and Fellows on Animal Belief”, Philosophy 77: 115-24. Bekoff, Marc. 2007. The Emotional Lives of Animals: A Leading Scientist Explores Animal Joy, Sorrow, and Empathy, and Why They Matter.Novato: New World Library. Bekoff, Marc, ed. 1998. Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare. With Carron A. Meaney. Westport: Greenwood Press. Benatar, David. 2001. “Why the Naïve Argument against Moral Vegetarianism Really Is Naïve”, Environmental Values 10: 103-12. Benson, John. 1978. “Duty and the Beast”, Philosophy 53: 529-49. Bentham, Jeremy. 1970. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. London: Athlone Press. First published in 1789. 189 Animals and Ethics (FA) 3/16/09 10:43 AM Page 190 Review Copy ANIMALS AND ETHICS Benton, Ted. 1993. Natural Relations: Ecology, Animal Rights, and Social Justice. London: Verso. ––––––––– . 1996. “Animal Rights: An Eco-Socialist View”,in Robert Garner, ed., Animal Rights: The Changing Debate. New York: New York University Press. Benton, Ted, and Simon Redfearn. 1996. “The Politics of Animal Rights – Where Is the Left?”, New Left Review no. 215: 43-58. Bernstein, Mark H. 1998. On Moral Considerability: An Essay on Who Morally Matters. New York: Oxford University Press. ––––––––– . 2004a. “Neo-speciesism”, Journal of Social Philosophy 35: 380-90. ––––––––– . 2004b. Without a Tear: Our Tragic Relationship with Animals. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Berry, Rynn. 2004. Hitler: Neither Vegetarian Nor Animal Lover.New York: Pythagorean. Best, Steven, and Anthony J. Nocella, II, eds. 2004. Terrorists or Freedom Fighters? Reflections on the Liberation of Animals. New York: Lantern. Birke, Lynda. 1994. Feminism, Animals, and Science: The Naming of the Shrew. Buckingham: Open University Press. Birnbacher, Dieter. 1996. “The Great Apes – Why They Have a Right to Life”, Etica & Animali 8: 142-54. Bisgould, Lesli. 2008. “Power and Irony: One Tortured Cat and Many Twisted Angles to Our Moral Schizophrenia about Animals”,in Jodey Castricano, ed., Animal Subjects: An Ethical Reader in a Posthuman World.Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press. Bleich, J. David. 1986. “Judaism and Animal Experimentation”,in Tom Regan, ed., Animal Sacrifices: Religious Perspectives on the Use of Animals in Science. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Blum, Deborah. 1994. The Monkey Wars. New York: Oxford University Press. Blumberg, Mark S., and Edward A. Wasserman. 1995. “Animal Mind and the Argument from Design”, American Psychologist 50: 133-44. Boonin-Vail, David. 1993. “The Vegetarian Savage: Rousseau’s Critique of Meat Eating”, Environmental Ethics 15: 75-84. ––––––––– . 1994. “Contractarianism Gone Wild: Carruthers and the Moral Status of Animals”, Between the Species 10: 39-48. Bostock, Stephen St C. 1993. Zoos and Animal Rights: The Ethics of Keeping Animals. London: Routledge. Botting, Jack H., and Adrian R. Morrison. 1997. “Animal Research Is Vital to Medicine”, Scientific American 276, no. 2: 83-85. 190 Animals and Ethics (FA) 3/16/09 10:43 AM Page 191 Review Copy BIBLIOGRAPHY, INCLUDING WORKS CITED Bowd, Alan D., and Kenneth J. Shapiro. 1993. “The Case against Laboratory Animal Research in Psychology”, Journal of Social Issues 49: 133-42. Broadie, Alexander, and Elizabeth M. Pybus. 1974. “Kant’s Treatment of Animals”, Philosophy 49: 375-83. Brophy, Brigid. 1989.“The Rights of Animals”,in Brigid Brophy, Reads.London: Cardinal. First published in The Sunday Times (London), October 10, 1965. Brown, Les. 1988. Cruelty to Animals: The Moral Debt. Basingstoke: Macmillan Press. Bruckner, Donald W. 2007. “Considerations on the Morality of Meat Consumption: Hunted-Game versus Farm-Raised Animals”, Journal of Social Philosophy 38: 311-30. Bryant, John. 1990. Fettered Kingdoms. Winchester: Fox Press. Budiansky, Stephen. 1992. The Covenant of the Wild: Why Animals Choose Domestication. New York: William Morrow. ––––––––– . 1998. If a Lion Could Talk: Animal Intelligence and the Evolution of Consciousness.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Are Illegal Direct Actions by Animal Rights Activists Ethically Vigilante?
    260 BETWEEN THE SPECIES Is the Radical Animal Rights Movement Ethically Vigilante? ABSTRACT Following contentious debates around the status and justifiability of illegal direct actions by animal rights activists, we introduce a here- tofore unexplored perspective that argues they are neither terrorist nor civilly disobedient but ethically vigilante. Radical animal rights movement (RARM) activists are vigilantes for vulnerable animals and their rights. Hence, draconian measures by the constitutional state against RARM vigilantes are both disproportionate and ille- gitimate. The state owes standing and toleration to such principled vigilantes, even though they are self-avowed anarchists and anti-stat- ists—unlike civil disobedients—repudiating allegiance to the con- stitutional order. This requires the state to acknowledge the ethical nature of challenges to its present regime of toleration, which assigns special standing to illegal actions in defense of human equality, but not equality and justice between humans and animals. Michael Allen East Tennessee State University Erica von Essen Environmental Communications Division Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Volume 22, Issue 1 Fall 2018 http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/bts/ 261 Michael Allen and Erica von Essen Introduction We explore the normative status of illegal actions under- taken by the Radical Animal Rights Movement (RARM), such as animal rescue, trespass, and sabotage as well as confronta- tion and intimidation. RARM typically characterizes these ac- tions as examples of direct action rather than civil disobedience (Milligan 2015, Pellow 2014). Moreover, many RARM activ- ists position themselves as politically anarchist, anti-statist, and anti-capitalist (Best 2014, Pellow 2014). Indeed, the US and UK take these self-presentations at face value, responding to RARM by introducing increasingly draconian legislation that treats them as terrorists (Best 2014, McCausland, O’Sullivan and Brenton 2013, O’Sullivan 2011, Pellow 2014).
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change Impacts on Free-Living Nonhuman Animals
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Redfame Publishing: E-Journals Studies in Media and Communication Vol. 7, No. 1; June 2019 ISSN: 2325-8071 E-ISSN: 2325-808X Published by Redfame Publishing URL: http://smc.redfame.com Climate Change Impacts on Free-Living Nonhuman Animals. Challenges for Media and Communication Ethics Núria Almiron1, Catia Faria2 1Department of Communication, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Roc Boronat, 138 08018 Barcelona, Spain 2Centro de Ética, Política e Sociedade, ILCH, Universidade do Minho, Campus de Gualtar, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal Correspondence: Núria Almiron, Department of Communication, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Roc Boronat, 138 08018 Barcelona, Spain. Received: April 21, 2019 Accepted: May 21, 2019 Online Published: May 29, 2019 doi:10.11114/smc.v7i1.4305 URL: https://doi.org/10.11114/smc.v7i1.4305 Abstract The mainstream discussion regarding climate change in politics, public opinion and the media has focused almost exclusively on preventing the harms humans suffer due to global warming. Yet climate change is already having an impact on free-living nonhumans, which raises unexplored ethical concerns from a nondiscriminatory point of view. This paper discusses the inherent ethical challenge of climate change impacts on nonhuman animals living in nature and argues that the media and communication ethics cannot avoid addressing the issue. The paper further argues that media ethics needs to mirror animal ethics by rejecting moral anthropocentrism. Keywords: media ethics, egalitarianism, climate change, wildlife, anthropocentrism 1. Introduction Since evidence of climate change was brought to light by the first Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1990, concerns regarding the issue have focused almost exclusively on preventing the harm humans suffer due to global warming.
    [Show full text]
  • COURT of APPEALS of the STATE of NEW YORK ------X in the Matter of a Proceeding Under Article 70 of the CPLR for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
    COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------x In the Matter of a Proceeding under Article 70 of the CPLR for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, THE NONHUMAN RIGHTS PROJECT, INC., on Index Nos. 162358/15 behalf of TOMMY, (New York County); Petitioner-Appellant, 150149/16 (New York -against- County) PATRICK C. LAVERY, individually and as an of Circle L Trailer Sales, Inc., DIANE LAVERY, and CIRCLE L TRAILER SALES, INC., Respondents-Respondents, THE NONHUMAN RIGHTS PROJECT, INC., on behalf of KIKO, Petitioner-Appellant, -against- CARMEN PRESTI, individually and as an officer and director of The Primate Sanctuary, Inc., CHRISTIE E. PRESTI, individually and as an officer and director of The Primate Sanctuary, Inc., and THE PRIMATE SANCTUARY, INC., Respondents-Respondents. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------x MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS Elizabeth Stein, Esq. Steven M. Wise, Esq. 5 Dunhill Road (of the Bar of the State of New Hyde Park, New York Massachusetts) 11040 By Permission of the Court (516) 747-4726 5195 NW 112th Terrace [email protected] Coral Springs, Florida 33076 (954) 648-9864 [email protected] TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Table of Authorities ................................................................................... iv Argument .................................................................................................... 1 I. Preliminary Statement
    [Show full text]
  • Rattling the Cage Defended Steven M
    Boston College Law Review Volume 43 Article 2 Issue 3 Number 3 5-1-2002 Rattling the Cage Defended Steven M. Wise Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr Part of the Animal Law Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Steven M. Wise, Rattling the Cage Defended, 43 B.C.L. Rev. 623 (2002), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr/vol43/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RATTLING THE CAGE DEFENDED STEVEN M. WISE* Abstract: In Rattling the Cage: Toward Levi Rights for Animals, the author advocated basic legal rights—specifically common law rights—for chimpanzees, bonobos, and other nonhuman animals. In this Article, the author responds to many of the major criticisms of Rattling the Cage. The author confronts critics of his historical arguments for legal rights for nonhuman animals, tracing those arguments through ancient philosophy and nineteenth century English statutes. The author also expands upon his legal arguments for animal rights, reexamining various theories of rights and justifications for treating animals as property, Finally, borrowing from his upcoming book Drawing the Line: Science and The Case for Animal Rights, the author defends his advocacy of legal rights for nonhuman animals based on the relative autonomy nonhuman animals possess. INTRODUCTION "The 'animal rights' movement is gathering steam and Steven Wise is one of the pistons."l Thus Judge Richard Posner began a Yale Law Journal review of my book, Rattling the Cage: Toward Legal Rights for Animals, published in 2000.
    [Show full text]
  • The Scope of the Argument from Species Overlap
    bs_bs_banner Journal of Applied Philosophy,Vol.31, No. 2, 2014 doi: 10.1111/japp.12051 The Scope of the Argument from Species Overlap OSCAR HORTA ABSTRACT The argument from species overlap has been widely used in the literature on animal ethics and speciesism. However, there has been much confusion regarding what the argument proves and what it does not prove, and regarding the views it challenges.This article intends to clarify these confusions, and to show that the name most often used for this argument (‘the argument from marginal cases’) reflects and reinforces these misunderstandings.The article claims that the argument questions not only those defences of anthropocentrism that appeal to capacities believed to be typically human, but also those that appeal to special relations between humans. This means the scope of the argument is far wider than has been thought thus far. Finally, the article claims that, even if the argument cannot prove by itself that we should not disregard the interests of nonhuman animals, it provides us with strong reasons to do so, since the argument does prove that no defence of anthropocentrism appealing to non-definitional and testable criteria succeeds. 1. Introduction The argument from species overlap, which has also been called — misleadingly, I will argue — the argument from marginal cases, points out that the criteria that are com- monly used to deprive nonhuman animals of moral consideration fail to draw a line between human beings and other sentient animals, since there are also humans who fail to satisfy them.1 This argument has been widely used in the literature on animal ethics for two purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • Living with Animals Conference Co-Organized by Robert W. Mitchell, Radhika N
    Living with Animals Conference Co-organized by Robert W. Mitchell, Radhika N. Makecha, & Michał Piotr Pręgowski Eastern Kentucky University, 19-21 March 2015 Cover design: Kasey L. Morris Conference overview Each day begins with a keynote speaker, and follows with two tracks (in separate locations) that will run concurrently. Breakfast foods and coffee/tea/water will be available prior to the morning keynotes. Coffee breaks (i.e., snacks and coffee/tea/water) are scheduled between sequential groups of talks. Thus, for example, if one session is from 9:05-10:15, and the next session is 10:40-11:40, there is a coffee break from 10:15-10:40. Drinks and edibles should be visible at or near the entry to the rooms where talks are held. Book display: Throughout the conference in Library Room 201, there is a book display. Several university presses have generously provided books for your perusal (as well as order sheets), and some conference participants will be displaying their books as well. Thursday features the “Living with Horses” sessions, as well as concurrent sessions, and has an optional (pre-paid) trip to Berea for shopping and dinner at the Historic Boone Tavern Restaurant. Friday features the “Teaching with Animals” sessions throughout the morning and early afternoon (which includes a boxed lunch during panel discussions and a movie showing and discussion); “Living with Animals” sessions continuing in the late afternoon, and a Conference Dinner at Masala Indian restaurant. Saturday includes “Living with Animals” sessions throughout the day and Poster Presentations during a buffet lunch. In addition, there is the optional trip to the White Hall State Historic Site (you pay when you arrive at the site).
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 21, No. 2 Fall 2010 ______
    INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS NEWSLETTER _____________________________________________________ Volume 21, No. 2 Fall 2010 _____________________________________________________ GENERAL ANNOUNCEMENTS ISEE Membership: ISEE membership dues are now due annually by Earth Day—22 April—of each year. Please pay your 2010-2011 dues now if you have not already done so. You can either use the form on the last page of this Newsletter to mail a check to ISEE Treasurer Marion Hourdequin, or you can use PayPal with a credit card from the membership page of the ISEE website at: <http://www.cep.unt.edu/iseememb.html>. “Old World and New World Perspectives on Environmental Philosophy,” Eighth Annual Meeting of the International Society for Environmental Ethics (ISEE), Nijmegen, The Netherlands, 14-17 June 2011: Please see the full call for abstracts and conference details in the section CONFERENCES AND CALLS below. Abstracts are due by 6 December 2010. ISEE Newsletter Going Exclusively Electronic: Starting with the Spring 2011 issue (Volume 22, no. 1), hardcopies of the ISEE Newsletter will no longer be produced and mailed to ISEE members via snail mail. ISEE members will continue to receive the Newsletter electronically as a pdf and, of course, can print their own hardcopies. New ISEE Newsletter Editor: Starting with the Spring 2011 issue, the new ISEE Newsletter Editor will be William Grove-Fanning. Please submit all ISEE Newsletter items to him at: <[email protected]>. Welcome William! ISEE Newsletter Issues: There was no 2010 Spring/Summer issue of the ISEE Newsletter. Because of the ISEE Newsletter Editor transition from Mark Woods to William Grove-Fanning, there will be no Winter 2011 issue of the ISEE Newsletter.
    [Show full text]
  • What a Jew Should Do
    I If You Really Care About Animals, You Need to Read The ANIMALS' AGENDA WHAT A JEW SHOULD DO Roberta Kalechofsky Kalechofsky Jews for Jesus Jesus Editors' Note: This article is a response to an article by Sidney Gendin, "What Should a Jew Do?", published in Between the Species, To say you love animals is one vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 25-32. thing, but it's important to know what you're talking about if you're really going to do something to help them. idney Gendin's review of Richard Schwartz's Covering a range of issues from fac­ book, Judaism and Vegetarianism and of tory farming to Native trapping, § Rabbi Bleich's article in Animal Sacrifices: from endangered species to com­ panion animals, we have been a Religious Perspectives on the Use ofAnimals in Science is valuable resource for nine years. We premised on the mistaken idea that what separates are your best connection with the Richard Schwartz's involvement in vegetarianism people and events that are making and animal rights from Rabbi Bleich's apparent animal rights one of the major movements of the twentieth century. indifference to them is that the former represents the Reform position in Judaism while the latter ~~~~ represents the Orthodox posture. &®rn~A To begin with, Richard Schwartz himself is not a The International Magazine Reform Jew. Though he eschews labels like of Animal Rights & Ecology '-------------­'-------------- "Orthodox" or "Conservative" and prefers to call ~ himself simply "committed," the congregation he ' I want to subscribe to ~ belongs to is Orthodox, and his practice would be • The ANIMALS' AGENDA.
    [Show full text]
  • Bob Fischer's CV
    BOB FISCHER [email protected] Department of Philosophy bobfischer.net Texas State University orcid.org/0000-0001-9605-393X 601 University Drive 512.245.2403 San Marcos, TX 78666 EMPLOYMENT Texas State University: Associate Professor of Philosophy 2019-present Texas State University: Assistant Professor of Philosophy 2013-2019 Texas State University: Senior Lecturer 2011-2013 EDUCATION University of Illinois at Chicago, Ph.D., Philosophy 2006-2011 Dissertation: Modal Knowledge, in Theory Director: W. D. Hart State University of New York at Geneseo, B.A., English & Philosophy 2001-2004 PUBLICATIONS BOOKS AUTHORED What Do We Owe Other Animals? Under contract with Routledge. (w/ Anja Jauernig) Wildlife Ethics: Animal Ethics in Wildlife Management and Conservation. Under contract with Blackwell. (w/ Christian Gamborg, Jordan Hampton, Clare Palmer, and Peter Sandøe) Animal Ethics — A Contemporary Introduction. New York: Routledge, 2021. The Ethics of Eating Animals: Usually Bad, Sometimes Wrong, Often Permissible. New York: Routledge, 2020. Modal Justification via Theories. Synthese Library. Cham: Springer, 2017. BOOKS EDITED A 21st Century Ethical Toolbox, 5th Edition. Under contract with Oxford University Press. (w/ Anthony Weston) Ethics, Left and Right: The Moral Issues That Divide Us. New York: Oxford University Press, 2020. College Ethics: A Reader on Moral Issues That Affect You, 2nd Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2020. (1st Edition: 2017) The Routledge Handbook of Animal Ethics. New York: Routledge, 2020. Modal Epistemology After Rationalism. Synthese Library. Cham: Springer, 2017. (w/ Felipe Leon) The Moral Complexities of Eating Meat. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015. (w/ Ben Bramble) ARTICLES & BOOK CHAPTERS “Animal Agriculture, Wet Markets, and COVID-19: A Case Study in Indirect Activism.” Food Ethics, forthcoming.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Research Paper Series
    Legal Research Paper Series NON HUMAN ANIMALS AND THE LAW: A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF ANIMAL LAW RESOURCES AT THE STANFORD LAW LIBRARY By Rita K. Lomio and J. Paul Lomio Research Paper No. 6 October 2005 Robert Crown Law Library Crown Quadrangle Stanford, California 94305-8612 NON HUMAN ANIMALS AND THE LAW: A BIBLIOGRPAHY OF ANIMAL LAW RESOURCES AT THE STANFORD LAW LIBRARY I. Books II. Reports III. Law Review Articles IV. Newspaper Articles (including legal newspapers) V. Sound Recordings and Films VI. Web Resources I. Books RESEARCH GUIDES AND BIBLIOGRAPHIES Hoffman, Piper, and the Harvard Student Animal Legal Defense Fund The Guide to Animal Law Resources Hollis, New Hampshire: Puritan Press, 1999 Reference KF 3841 G85 “As law students, we have found that although more resources are available and more people are involved that the case just a few years ago, locating the resource or the person we need in a particular situation remains difficult. The Guide to Animal Law Resources represents our attempt to collect in one place some of the resources a legal professional, law professor or law student might want and have a hard time finding.” Guide includes citations to organizations and internships, animal law court cases, a bibliography, law schools where animal law courses are taught, Internet resources, conferences and lawyers devoted to the cause. The International Institute for Animal Law A Bibliography of Animal Law Resources Chicago, Illinois: The International Institute for Animal Law, 2001 KF 3841 A1 B53 Kistler, John M. Animal Rights: A Subject Guide, Bibliography, and Internet Companion Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 2000 HV 4708 K57 Bibliography divided into six subject areas: Animal Rights: General Works, Animal Natures, Fatal Uses of Animals, Nonfatal Uses of Animals, Animal Populations, and Animal Speculations.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of the Question of the Animal and Religion: Theoretical Stakes, Practical Implications
    147 BETWEEN THE SPECIES Review of The Question of the Animal and Religion: Theoretical Stakes, Practical Implications Aaron S. Gross Columbia Univ. Press 2015 p. 292, pbk. A.G. Holdier Colorado Technical University [email protected] Volume 20, Issue 1 Summer, 2017 http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/bts/ 148 A.G. Holdier In The Question of the Animal and Religion: Theoretical Stakes, Practical Implications, Aaron S. Gross breaks new ground in contemporary animal studies by tracing the recent history of critical religious approaches to animals before fram- ing several new horizons for further study in an interdisciplin- ary field ripe for exploration. The book aims to broadly “expose the absent presence of animals in the history of the study of religion and clear a space for their future” (7), a task Gross sets to by tracing the lineage of Western animal studies through the work of Émile Dur- kheim, Ernst Cassirer, Mircea Eliade, and Jonathan Z. Smith to reveal Western culture’s tendency to replace animal concerns with human ones, even when animals are the supposed focus of one’s analysis. In each case, Gross points out how the theo- rists purport to elevate animals as examples in their various frameworks, only to mutate them into totemic representations of ultimately human concern, thereby evacuating the “animal- ity” of animals and replacing it with purely anthropocentric values. As the Durkheimian sacred/profane binary has been maintained in the development of critical studies, animals have been discussed philosophically, but primarily as foils for hu- man religious practices and never on their own terms.
    [Show full text]
  • Zoopolis, Intervention, and the State of Nature*
    Zoopolis, Intervention, and the State of Nature* OSCAR HORTA Universidad de Santiago de Compostela Abstract In Zoopolis, Donaldson and Kymlicka argue that intervention in nature to aid animals is sometimes permissible, and in some cases obligatory, to save them from the harms they commonly face. But they claim these interven- tions must have some limits, since they could otherwise disrupt the struc- ture of the communities wild animals form, which should be respected as sovereign ones. These claims are based on the widespread assumption that ecosystemic processes ensure that animals have good lives in nature. How- ever, this assumption is, unfortunately, totally unrealistic. Most animals are r-strategists who die in pain shortly after coming into existence, and those who make it to maturity commonly suffer terrible harms too. In addition, most animals do not form the political communities Zoopolis describes. The situation of animals in the wild can therefore be considered analogous to one of humanitarian catastrophe, or to that of irretrievably failed states. It matches closely what a Hobbesian state of nature would be like. This means that intervention in nature to aid nonhuman animals should not be limited as Donaldson and Kymlicka argue. Keywords: animal ethics, animal rights, intervention, sovereignty, specie- sism, state of nature. 1. INTRODUCTION Zoopolis: A Political Theory of Animal Rights is a novel, brilliantly argued and very instructive book. It addresses some of the most important topics in ani- mal ethics in a fresh and original way, and opens new lines of inquiry. This paper focuses on what I consider the most significant problemZoopolis tack- * For very helpful comments, I thank Paula Casal and three anonymous referees, two of who later revealed themselves to be Lori Gruen and Andrew Williams.
    [Show full text]