DOCSLIB.ORG

2 the Work Done by Animals: Identifying and Understanding Animals’ Work

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Notes 2 The Work Done by Animals: Identifying and Understanding Animals’ Work 1 . T his book has also been published as Counting for Nothing: What Men Value and What Women are Worth . Some neo-Marxists and ecological economists have explored and debated questions of value, as well. See, for instance, Paul Burkett, “Nature’s ‘Free Gifts’ and the Ecological Significance of Value,” Capital & Class 23, no. 2 (1999): 89–110. 2 . See Ryan Gunderson, “The First-Generation Frankfurt School on the Animal Question: Foundations for a Normative Sociological Animal Studies,” Sociological Perspectives 57, no. 3 (2014): 285–300 for a good discussion of the cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School and their ideas on animals; and “Marx’s Comments on Animal Welfare,” Rethinking Marxism 23(4): 543–8 for discussion of Marx’s views on animal welfare organizations. Anifesto: The Promise of Interspecies Solidarity 1 . For good discussions of the Frankfurt School and animals, see also Christina Gerhardt, “Thinking With: Animals in Schopenhauer, Horkheimer, and Adorno.” In Critical Theory and Animal Liberation , ed. John Sanbonmatsu. Rowman & Littlefield, 2011: 137–146; Zipporah Weisberg, “The Trouble with Posthumanism: Bacteria Are People, Too.” In Critical Animal Studies: Thinking the Unthinkable, ed. John Sorenson. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press, 2014, 93–116. References Abromeit, John. Max Horkheimer and the Foundations of the Frankfurt School . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Adams, Carol J. “Action, Engagement, Remembering—All Together Now.” In Speaking Up for Animals: An Anthology of Women’s Voices , edited by Lisa Kemmerer, ix–xvii. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers, 2012 ———. The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theoryy. New York: The Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010. ———. “The War on Compassion.” In The Feminist Care Tradition in Animal Ethics, edited by Josephine Donovan and Carol J. Adams, 21–36. New York: Columbia University Press, 2007. Adams, Carol J., and Lori Gruen, eds. Ecofeminism: Feminist Intersections with Other Animals and the Earth. New York: Bloomsbury, 2014a. Adams, Carol J., and Lori Gruen. “Groundwork.” In Ecofeminism: Feminist Intersections with Other Animals and the Earth, e dited by Carol J. Adams and Lori Gruen, 7–36. New York: Bloomsbury, 2014b. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 2011. “Number of Farms by Industry Type.” http://www.agr.gc.ca/poultry/nofrms_eng.htm . Akhtar, Aysha. Animals and Public Health: Why Treating Animals Better Is Critical to Human Welfare . New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. Allen, Colin, and Marc Bekoff. Species of Mind: The Philosophy and Biology of Cognitive Ethologyy . Cambridge: MIT Press, 1999. Animal Legal Defense Fund, “ALDF Sues University of Wisconsin over ‘Maternal Deprivation’ Experiments on Baby Monkeys.” October 14, 2014, http://aldf.org/press-room/press-releases/aldf-sues-university-of- wisconsin-over- maternal-deprivation-experiments-on-baby-monkeys/. Anthony, Raymond. “Farming Animals and the Capabilities Approach: Understanding Roles and Responsibilities Through Narrative Ethics.” Society and Animals 17, no. 3 (2009): 257–278. Araiza, Lauren. To March for Others: The Black Freedom Struggle and the United Farm Workers . Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013. 168 REFERENCES Arluke, Arnold, and Clinton R. Sanders. Regarding Animals. P hiladelphia: Temple University Press, 1996. Armstrong, Pat, and Hugh Armstrong. “Public and Private: Implications for Care Work.” The Sociological Revieww 53, no. s2 (2005): 167–187. Armstrong, Pat, Hugh Armstrong, and Krista Scott-Dixon. Critical to Care: The Invisible Women in Health Services . Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2008. Arluke, Arnold. Brute Force: Animal Police and the Challenge of Cruelty. West Lafayette: Purdue University Press, 2004. ———. “Managing Emotions in an Animal Shelter.” In A nimals and Human Society: Changing Perspectives , edited by Aubrey Manning and James Serpell, 145–165. New York: Routledge, 1994. Ascione, Frank R. International Handbook of Animal Abuse and Cruelty: Theory, Research, and Application. West Lafayette: Purdue University Press, 2008. Ascione, Frank R., and Phil Arkow, eds. Child Abuse, Domestic Violence, and Animal Abuse: Linking the Circles of Compassion for Prevention and Intervention. Lafayette: Purdue University Press, 2000. Baines, Donna. “In a Different Way: Social Unionism in the Nonprofit Social Services—An Australian/Canadian Comparison.” Labor Studies Journall 35, no. 4 (2010): 480–502. Bakker, Isabella. “Social Reproduction and the Constitution of a Gendered Political Economy.” New Political Economyy 12, no. 4 (2007): 541–556. Bakker, Isabella, and Rachel Silvey, eds. Beyond States and Markets: The Challenges of Social Reproduction . New York: Routledge, 2012. Balk, Josh. “A Social Justice Issue We Can Sink Our Teeth into: Factory Farming.” Common Dreams, 2014: http://www.commondreams.org/ view/2014/07/09-2 . Bartram, David J., Ghasem Yadegarfar, and David S. Baldwin. “A Cross-Sectional Study of Mental Health and Well-being and Their Associations in the UK Veterinary Profession.” Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiologyy 44, no. 12 (2009): 1075–1085. Bartram, David J., and David S. Baldwin. “Veterinary Surgeons and Suicide: A Structured Review of Possible Influences on Increased Risk.” Veterinary Recordd 166, no. 13 (2010): 388–397. Baur, Gene. Farm Sanctuary: Changing Hearts and Minds about Animals and Food . New York: Simon and Schuster, 2008. BBC News. “Nottinghamshire Police Dogs to Receive ‘Pensions.’” BBC , November 4, 2013, http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england- nottinghamshire-24807719 . Beaulieu, Martin S. Demographic Changes in Canadian Agriculture. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2014. REFERENCES 169 Beckford, Clinton L., Clint Jacobs, Naomi Williams, and Russell Nahdee. “Aboriginal Environmental Wisdom, Stewardship, and Sustainability: Lessons from the Walpole Island First Nations, Ontario, Canada.” The Journal of Environmental Education 41, no. 4 (2010): 239–248. Beers, Diane L. For the Prevention of Cruelty: The History and Legacy of Animal Rights Activism in the United States . Athens: Swallow Press/ Ohio University Press, 2006. Beisser, Andrea L., Scott McClure, Chong Wang, Keith Soring, Rudy Garrison, and Bryce Peckham. “Evaluation of Catastrophic Musculoskeletal Injuries in Thoroughbreds and Quarter Horses at Three Midwestern Racetracks.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 239, no. 9 (2011): 1236–1241. Bekoff, Marc. The Emotional Lives of Animals: A Leading Scientist Explores Animal Joy, Sorrow, and Empathy-and Why They Matterr. Novato: New World Library, 2008. Benton, Ted. Natura l Relations: Ecology, Animal Rights and Social Justice. London: Verso, 1993. Berget, Bente and Bjarne O. Braastad. “Animal-Assisted Therapy with Farm Animals for Persons with Psychiatric Disorders.” A nnali dell’Istituto superiore di Sanittà 47, no. 4 (2011): 384–390. Berget, Bente, Lena Lidfors, Anna Marí a Pá lsdó ttir, Katriina Soini, and Karen Thodberg. “Green Care in the Nordic Countries—A Research Field in Progress.” Å s: Norwegian University of Life Sciences, 2012. Best, Steven. “The Rise of Critical Animal Studies: Putting Theory into Action and Animal Liberation into Higher Education.” Journal for Critical Animal Studies 7, no. 1 (2009): 9–52. Best, Steven, and Anthony J. Nocella, eds. Terrorists or Freedom Fighters? Reflections on the Liberation of Animalss . Brooklyn: Lantern Books, 2004. Bezanson, Kate. Gender, the State, and Social Reproduction: Household Insecurity in Neo-liberal Times . Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006. Birke, Lynda. “Hope of Change: Rethinking Human-Animal Relations?” In Theorizing Animals: Re-thinking Humanimal Relations, edited by Nik Taylor and Lynda Birke, xvi–xx. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2011. ———. “Naming Names—Or, What’s in It for the Animals?” Humanimalia 1, no. 1 (2009): n.p. Birke, Lynda, Arnold Arluke, and Mike Michael. The Sacrifice: How Scientific Experiments Transform Animals and People . West Lafayette: Purdue University Press, 2007. Bisgould, Lesli, Wendy King, and Jennifer Stopford. “Anything Goes: An Overview of Canada’s Legal Approach to Animals on Factory Farms.” April, 2001. 170 REFERENCES Boissy, Alain, Gerhard Manteuffel, Margit Bak Jensen, Randi Oppermann Moe, Berry Spruijt, Linda J. Keeling, and Christoph Winckler. “Assess- ment of Positive Emotions in Animals to Improve Their Welfare.” Physi- ology & Behaviorr 92, no. 3 (2007): 375–397. Boris, Eileen, and Rhacel Salazar Parre ñas, eds. Intimate Labors: Cul- tures, Technologies, and the Politics of Care . Redwood City: Stanford University Press, 2010. Bradshaw, G. A., J. G. Borchers, and V. Muller-Paisner. 2012. Caring for the Caregiver: Analysis and Assessment of Animal Care Professional and Organizational Wellbeing. Jacksonville: The Kerulos Center. Brightman, Robert. Rock Cree Human-Animal Relationships . Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993. Briskin, Linda. “In the Public Interest: Nurses on Strike.” In Public Sector Unions in the Age of Austerityy, edited by Stephanie Ross and Larry Savage, 91–102. Halifax and Winnipeg: Fernwood Publishing, 2013. Briskin, Linda, and Patricia McDermott, eds. Women Challenging Unions: Feminism, Democracy, and Militancy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993. Broadway, Michael. “Planning for Change in Small Towns or Trying to Avoid the Slaughterhouse Blues.” Journal of Rural Studies 16, no. 1 (2000): 37–46. Brodie, Janine. Politics on
Recommended publications
  • Are Illegal Direct Actions by Animal Rights Activists Ethically Vigilante?

    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).
  • "Go Veg" Campaigns of US Animal Rights Organizations

    "Go Veg" Campaigns of US Animal Rights Organizations

    Society and Animals 18 (2010) 163-182 brill.nl/soan Framing Animal Rights in the “Go Veg” Campaigns of U.S. Animal Rights Organizations Carrie Packwood Freeman Georgia State University [email protected] Abstract How much do animal rights activists talk about animal rights when they attempt to persuade America’s meat-lovers to stop eating nonhuman animals? Th is study serves as the basis for a unique evaluation and categorization of problems and solutions as framed by fi ve major U.S. animal rights organizations in their vegan/food campaigns. Th e fi ndings reveal that the organiza- tions framed the problems as: cruelty and suff ering; commodifi cation; harm to humans and the environment; and needless killing. To solve problems largely blamed on factory farming, activists asked consumers to become “vegetarian” (meaning vegan) or to reduce animal product con- sumption, some requesting “humane” reforms. While certain messages supported animal rights, promoting veganism and respect for animals’ subject status, many frames used animal welfare ideology to achieve rights solutions, conservatively avoiding a direct challenge to the dominant human/animal dualism. In support of ideological authenticity, this paper recommends that vegan campaigns emphasize justice, respect, life, freedom, environmental responsibility, and a shared animality. Keywords animal rights, campaigns, farm animal, framing, ideology, vegan, vegetarian How much do or should animal rights activists talk about animal rights when they attempt to persuade America’s meat-lovers to stop eating animals? As participants in a counterhegemonic social movement, animal rights organiza- tions are faced with the discursive challenge of redefi ning accepted practices, such as farming and eating nonhuman animals, as socially unacceptable practices.
  • Western Civilisation 'Maintains Itself By

    Western Civilisation 'Maintains Itself By

    Western Civilisation ‘maintains itself by banishing Others (nature, animals, women, children) to the margin’.1 How do Notions of Alterity and/or Marginalisation Feature in the Representation of Animals? Georgia Horne Humans’ relationship with animals is a complexly mutable one, with the parameters of distinction being repeatedly rethought and redrawn by thinkers from a range of disciplines. The protean nature of these irreconcilable views is apparent given how, as observed by John Berger, throughout history animals have been concurrently bred yet sacrificed, subjected to suffering yet worshipped in idolatry.2 Accordingly, animals have continuously occupied a liminal space both above and below (but never with) man, a form of existential dualism reflective of the seemingly irresolvable struggle of where to place them in relation to humans. The site of difference between humans and other animals is where we derive our ontological concepts of humanity and animality and thus, ultimately, our place in the world as one species amongst others (an admittedly anthropocentric telos). Traditionally, ontological discourse on this issue has been dominated by an animal-human dichotomy, wherein the subjects are defined in opposition to each other.3 The privation of certain attributes are cited as evidence for this polarity, with philosophers such as Kant, Descartes and Aristotle citing humans’ capacity to reason as the qualifying criterion that simultaneously demarcates humans from animals, and endows us with a superiority over them. This binary contradistinction is threatened in Franz Kafka’s ‘A Report to an Academy’, which utilises various postcolonial narrative strategies to obfuscate the human-animal distinction, destabilising the West’s confident certainty in the Otherness of animals, and complicating the ethics of using animals’ assumed alterity to justify their marginalisation and mistreatment.
  • An Inquiry Into Animal Rights Vegan Activists' Perception and Practice of Persuasion

    An Inquiry Into Animal Rights Vegan Activists' Perception and Practice of Persuasion

    An Inquiry into Animal Rights Vegan Activists’ Perception and Practice of Persuasion by Angela Gunther B.A., Simon Fraser University, 2006 Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in the School of Communication ! Angela Gunther 2012 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY Summer 2012 All rights reserved. However, in accordance with the Copyright Act of Canada, this work may be reproduced, without authorization, under the conditions for “Fair Dealing.” Therefore, limited reproduction of this work for the purposes of private study, research, criticism, review and news reporting is likely to be in accordance with the law, particularly if cited appropriately. Approval Name: Angela Gunther Degree: Master of Arts Title of Thesis: An Inquiry into Animal Rights Vegan Activists’ Perception and Practice of Persuasion Examining Committee: Chair: Kathi Cross Gary McCarron Senior Supervisor Associate Professor Robert Anderson Supervisor Professor Michael Kenny External Examiner Professor, Anthropology SFU Date Defended/Approved: June 28, 2012 ii Partial Copyright Licence iii Abstract This thesis interrogates the persuasive practices of Animal Rights Vegan Activists (ARVAs) in order to determine why and how ARVAs fail to convince people to become and stay veg*n, and what they might do to succeed. While ARVAs and ARVAism are the focus of this inquiry, the approaches, concepts and theories used are broadly applicable and therefore this investigation is potentially useful for any activist or group of activists wishing to interrogate and improve their persuasive practices. Keywords: Persuasion; Communication for Social Change; Animal Rights; Veg*nism; Activism iv Table of Contents Approval ............................................................................................................................. ii! Partial Copyright Licence .................................................................................................
  • Putting a Price on Whales to Save Them: What Do Morals Have to Do with It?

    Putting a Price on Whales to Save Them: What Do Morals Have to Do with It?

    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2013 Putting a Price on Whales To Save Them: What Do Morals Have To Do with It? Hope M. Babcock Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1653 43 Envtl. L. 1-33 (2013) This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Animal Law Commons, and the Environmental Law Commons TOJCI.BABCOCK – NEW ABSTRACT 2/23/2013 1:10 PM Essay PUTTING A PRICE ON WHALES TO SAVE THEM: WHAT DO MORALS HAVE TO DO WITH IT? BY HOPE M. BABCOCK* The author explores the moral implication of a proposal to create an international market in whale shares as an alternative to the dysfunctional International Whaling Commission. She finds the proposal amoral because whales, like humans, have an intrinsic right to life. Since this leaves whales vulnerable to whale hunting nations, she suggests that international environmental organizations might help a whale preservation norm emerge in whaling nations by using education and interventionist activities that focus on whaling’s cruelty to ultimately encourage the citizens and governments of those nations to change their self-image as whale eating cultures. * Hope Babcock is a professor of law at Georgetown University Law School. This Essay was first presented as the Twenty-fifth Natural Resources Law Institute Distinguished Visitor Lecture given at Lewis & Clark Law School in October 2012, and originated in an Article entitled Why Changing Norms Is a More Just Solution to the Failed International Regulatory Regime to Protect Whales than a Trading Program in Whale Shares, forthcoming in the Stanford Environmental Law Journal (2012).
  • Animals Liberation Philosophy and Policy Journal Volume 5, Issue 1

    Animals Liberation Philosophy and Policy Journal Volume 5, Issue 1

    AAnniimmaallss LLiibbeerraattiioonn PPhhiilloossoopphhyy aanndd PPoolliiccyy JJoouurrnnaall VVoolluummee 55,, IIssssuuee 11 -- 22000077 Animal Liberation Philosophy and Policy Journal Volume 5, Issue 1 2007 Edited By: Steven Best, Chief Editor ____________________________________________________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Steven Best, Chief Editor Pg. 2-3 Introducing Critical Animal Studies Steven Best, Anthony J. Nocella II, Richard Kahn, Carol Gigliotti, and Lisa Kemmerer Pg. 4-5 Extrinsic and Intrinsic Arguments: Strategies for Promoting Animal Rights Katherine Perlo Pg. 6-19 Animal Rights Law: Fundamentalism versus Pragmatism David Sztybel Pg. 20-54 Unmasking the Animal Liberation Front Using Critical Pedagogy: Seeing the ALF for Who They Really Are Anthony J. Nocella II Pg. 55-64 The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act: New, Improved, and ACLU-Approved Steven Best Pg. 65-81 BOOK REVIEWS _________________ In Defense of Animals: The Second Wave, by Peter Singer ed. (2005) Reviewed by Matthew Calarco Pg. 82-87 Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy, by Matthew Scully (2003) Reviewed by Lisa Kemmerer Pg. 88-91 Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?: Reflections on the Liberation of Animals, by Steven Best and Anthony J. Nocella, II, eds. (2004) Reviewed by Lauren E. Eastwood Pg. 92 Introduction Welcome to the sixth issue of our journal. You’ll first notice that our journal and site has undergone a name change. The Center on Animal Liberation Affairs is now the Institute for Critical Animal Studies, and the Animal Liberation Philosophy and Policy Journal is now the Journal for Critical Animal Studies. The name changes, decided through discussion among our board members, were prompted by both philosophical and pragmatic motivations.
  • An Analysis on the Notion and Representation of The

    An Analysis on the Notion and Representation of The

    Accepted Crimes: An Analysis on the Notion and Representation of the Non-Human Animal and its Rights in J.M. Coetzee, The Lives of Animals through the character of Elizabeth Costello. Treball de Fi de Grau/ BA dissertation Author: Oriol Jiménez Batalla Supervisor: Dr. Felicity Hand Departament de Filologia Anglesa i de Germanística Grau d‘Estudis Anglesos June 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS 0. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 1. Theoretical Framework ...................................................................................................... 3 1.1. Human Animal vs. Non-Human Animal .............................................................................. 3 1.2. Non-Human Animals: Singer vs. Regan ............................................................................... 5 1.3. Non-Human Animals: Coetzee ............................................................................................. 15 2. Elizabeth Costello .............................................................................................................. 20 2.1. The Philosophy Behind the Character ................................................................................ 20 2.2. Costello vs. Coetzee .................................................................................................................. 30 2.3. Costello as the Non-Human Animal .................................................................................... 32 3. Conclusions
  • Equality, Priority and Nonhuman Animals*

    Equality, Priority and Nonhuman Animals*

    Equality, Priority and Catia Faria Nonhuman Animals* Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Department of Law [email protected] http://upf.academia.edu/catiafaria Igualdad, prioridad y animales no humanos ABSTRACT: This paper assesses the implications of egali- RESUMEN: Este artículo analiza las implicaciones del iguali- tarianism and prioritarianism for the consideration of tarismo y del prioritarismo en lo que refiere a la conside- nonhuman animals. These implications have been often ración de los animales no humanos. Estas implicaciones overlooked. The paper argues that neither egalitarianism han sido comúnmente pasadas por alto. Este artículo de- nor prioritarianism can consistently deprive nonhuman fenderá que ni el igualitarismo ni el prioritarismo pueden animals of moral consideration. If you really are an egali- privar de forma consistente de consideración moral a los tarian (or a prioritarian) you are necessarily committed animales no humanos. Si realmente alguien es igualitaris- both to the rejection of speciesism and to assigning prior- ta (o prioritarista) ha de tener necesariamente una posi- ity to the interests of nonhuman animals, since they are ción de rechazo del especismo, y estar a favor de asignar the worst-off. From this, important practical consequen- prioridad a los intereses de los animales no humanos, ces follow for the improvement of the current situation of dado que estos son los que están peor. De aquí se siguen nonhuman animals. importantes consecuencias prácticas para la mejora de la situación actual de los animales no humanos. KEYWORDS: egalitarianism, prioritarianism, nonhuman ani- PALABRAS-CLAVE: igualitarismo, prioritarismo, animales no hu- mals, speciesism, equality manos, especismo, igualdad 1. Introduction It is commonly assumed that human beings should be given preferential moral consideration, if not absolute priority, over the members of other species.
  • The Ethical Consistency of Animal Equality

    The Ethical Consistency of Animal Equality

    1 The ethical consistency of animal equality Stijn Bruers, Sept 2013, DRAFT 2 Contents 0. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................ 5 0.1 SUMMARY: TOWARDS A COHERENT THEORY OF ANIMAL EQUALITY ........................................................................ 9 1. PART ONE: ETHICAL CONSISTENCY ......................................................................................................... 18 1.1 THE BASIC ELEMENTS ................................................................................................................................. 18 a) The input data: moral intuitions .......................................................................................................... 18 b) The method: rule universalism............................................................................................................. 20 1.2 THE GOAL: CONSISTENCY AND COHERENCE ..................................................................................................... 27 1.3 THE PROBLEM: MORAL ILLUSIONS ................................................................................................................ 30 a) Optical illusions .................................................................................................................................... 30 b) Moral illusions ....................................................................................................................................
  • The Lives of Animals

    The Lives of Animals

    The Lives of Animals J. M. COETZEE THE TANNER LECTURES ON HUMAN VALUES Delivered at Princeton University October 15 and 16, 1997 J. M. COETZEE holds a chair in General Literature at the University of Cape Town. He received degrees in litera- ture and mathematics at the University of Cape Town and received his Ph.D. from the University of Texas at Austin in 1969. He has been a visiting professor at numerous uni- versities, including Johns Hopkins, Harvard, and the Uni- versity of Chicago. He is a fellow of the Royal Society of Literature and an honorary member of the American Acad- emy of Arts and Sciences. His first work of fiction was published in 1974. Since then he has published seven novels, three works of criticism, and a memoir, as well as translations from the Dutch and Afrikaans. His fiction, which includes The Master of Petersburg (1994), Waiting for the Barbarians (1982), and In the Heart of the Coun- try (1977), has been translated into sixteen languages and has won several major awards. The Life and Times of Michael K. (1983) won both Britain’s Booker Prize and France’s Prix Femina Etranger. He was awarded the Jeru- salem Prize in 1987. LECTURE I. THE PHILOSOPHERS AND THE ANIMALS He is waiting at the gate when her flight comes in. Two years have passed since he last saw his mother; despite himself, he is shocked at how she has aged. Her hair, which had had streaks of gray in it, is now entirely white; her shoulders stoop; her flesh has grown flabby.
  • Animal Rights

    Animal Rights

    Book Review Animal Rights Richard A. Posner' Rattling the Cage: Toward Legal Rightsfor Animals. By Steven M. Wise. Cambridge,Mass.: PerseusBooks, 2000. Pp. 362. $25.00. The "animal rights" movement is gathering steam, and Steven Wise is one of the pistons. A lawyer whose practice is the protection of animals, he has now written a book in which he urges courts in the exercise of their common-law powers of legal rulemaking to confer legally enforceable rights on animals, beginning with chimpanzees and bonobos (the two most intelligent primate species).' Although Wise is well-informed about his subject-the biological as well as legal aspects-this is not an intellectually exciting book. I do not say this in criticism. Remember who Wise is: a practicing lawyer who wants to persuade the legal profession that courts should do much more to protect animals. Judicial innovation proceeds incrementally; as Holmes put it, the courts, in their legislative capacity, "are confined from molar to molecular motions."2 Wise's practitioner's perspective is, as we shall see, both the strength and the weakness of the book. f Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; Senior Lecturer, University of Chicago Law School. I thank Michael Boudin, Richard Epstein, Lawrence Lessig, Martha Nussbaum, Charlene Posner, and Cass Sunstein for their very helpful comments on a previous draft of this Review. * Adjunct Professor, John Marshall Law School; Adjunct Professor, Vermont Law School; President, Center for the Expansion of Fundamental Rights; Partner, Wise & Slater-Wise, Boston. 1. These are closely related species, and Wise discusses them more or less interchangeably.
  • Against Animal Liberation? Peter Singer and His Critics

    Against Animal Liberation? Peter Singer and His Critics

    Against Animal Liberation? Peter Singer and His Critics Gonzalo Villanueva Sophia International Journal of Philosophy and Traditions ISSN 0038-1527 SOPHIA DOI 10.1007/s11841-017-0597-6 1 23 Your article is protected by copyright and all rights are held exclusively by Springer Science +Business Media Dordrecht. This e-offprint is for personal use only and shall not be self- archived in electronic repositories. If you wish to self-archive your article, please use the accepted manuscript version for posting on your own website. You may further deposit the accepted manuscript version in any repository, provided it is only made publicly available 12 months after official publication or later and provided acknowledgement is given to the original source of publication and a link is inserted to the published article on Springer's website. The link must be accompanied by the following text: "The final publication is available at link.springer.com”. 1 23 Author's personal copy SOPHIA DOI 10.1007/s11841-017-0597-6 Against Animal Liberation? Peter Singer and His Critics Gonzalo Villanueva1 # Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017 Keywords Animal ethics . Moral status of animals . Peter Singer. Animal liberation Peter Singer’s 1975 book Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals has been described as ‘the Bible’ of the modern animal movement.1 Singer’s unrhetorical and unemotional arguments radically departed from previous conceptions of animal ethics. He moved beyond the animal welfare tradition of ‘kindness’ and ‘compassion’ to articulate a non-anthropocentric utilitarian philosophy based on equal- ity and interests. After the publication of Animal Liberation, an ‘avalanche of animal rights literature’ appeared.2 A prolific amount of work focused on the moral status of animals, and the ‘animal question’ has been given serious consideration across a broad range of disciplines.