DOCSLIB.ORG

CATIA FARIA Law Department, Philosophy of Law Group Pompeu Fabra University Ramon Trias Fargas 25-27, 08005 Barcelona, Spain Ca[email protected]

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CATIA FARIA Law Department, Philosophy of Law Group Pompeu Fabra University Ramon Trias Fargas 25-27, 08005 Barcelona, Spain Ca�Axfaria@Gmail.Com Ca#a Faria’s CV, September 2015 CATIA FARIA Law Department, Philosophy of Law Group Pompeu Fabra University Ramon Trias Fargas 25-27, 08005 Barcelona, Spain ca#[email protected] O AREAS OF RESEARCH AOS: Bioethics, Applied Philosophy, Moral Philosophy AOC: Poli#cal Philosophy, Philosophy of Law, Meta-ethics O ACTUAL POSITION PhD Candidate, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain (2011 – present) Associate researcher, CEHUM, University of Minho, Portugal (2011 – present) O EDUCATION Master’s in Cogni#ve Sciences and Language, LOGOS – Grup de Recerca en Lògica, Llenguatge i Cognició, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain BA in Philosophy, Faculty of Arts, University of Porto, Portugal O RESEARCH STAYS Uehiro Centre for Prac#cal Ethics, University of Oxford, United Kingdom (Nov-Dec 2014). Logic and Moral Philosophy Department, Faculty of Philosophy, University of San#ago de Compostela, Spain (July 2010- Sept 2011). 2 PARTICIPATION IN SUMMER SCHOOLS Summer School in Applied Philosophy: Issues, Method and Nature. Central European University, Hungary (07-20/07/14). O PRIZES, SCHOLARSHIPS AND AWARDS CEU SUN Scholarship, awarded by the Central European University and the Society of Applied Philosophy for the Summer School in Applied Philosophy, Budapest, Hungary (07-20/07/14). !1 Ca#a Faria’s CV, September 2015 Doctorate Scholarship, Founda#on for Science and Technology, Ministry of Educa#on and Science of the Portuguese Government (2011-2015). Master’s Scholarship, Ministry of Science, Culture and Sports of the Spanish Government (2009-2010). O ACADEMIC PUBLICATIONS Faria, C. (2015) “Igualdad, prioridad y animales no humanos” [Equality, priority and nonhuman animals], in Gaitán, Iván Darío Ávila (ed.), Polí<ca Animal(ista), Desde Abajo Ediciones, Bogotá, forthcoming. Faria, C. (2015) “The lions and the zebras: towards a new ethics of environmental management in African na#onal parks”, in Ebert, Rainer y Roba, Anteneh (ed.), Africa and its Animals, Unisa Press, Pretoria, forthcoming. Faria, C. (2015) “Egalitarismus”, [Egalitarianism] in Ferrari, Arianna y Petrus, Klaus (ed.), Lexikon der Mensch/Tier-Beziehungen [Enciclopedia of human/animal rela#onships], Transcript, Bielefeld. Faria, C., Horta, O. (2015) “Wilde Tiere” [Wild animals], in Ferrari, Arianna y Petrus, Klaus (ed.), Lexikon der Mensch/Tier-Beziehungen [Enciclopedia of human/animal rela#onships], Transcript, Bielefeld. Faria, C. (2015) “Women, nature and nonhuman animals: natural allies?”, Review of Adams, Carol J., Gruen, Lori, Ecofeminism. Feminist Intersecons with Other Animals and the Earth (New York: Bloomsbury, 2014), Ethical Perspecves 22 (3): 469-473. Faria, C. (2015) “Dinámica de poblaciones y sus implicaciones para la é#ca de la ges#ón ambiental” [Popula#on dynamics and its implica#ons for the ethics of environmental management], Actas del I Congreso Internacional de la Red Española de FilosoQa 17: 15-24. Faria, C. (2015) “Disentangling obliga#ons of assistance. A reply to Clare Palmer”, Rela<ons 3 (2), forthcoming. Faria, C. (2015) “Making a difference on behalf of animals living in the wild: interview with Jeff McMahan”, Rela<ons 3 (1): 81-84. Faria, C., Paez, E. (2014) “Anthropocentrism and speciesism: conceptual and norma#ve issues”, Revista de Bioé<ca y Derecho 32: 82-90. Faria, C. (2014) “Equality, priority and nonhuman animals”, Dilemata 14: 225-236. Faria, C. (2013) “Differen#al obliga#ons towards others in need”, Review of Palmer, Clare, Animal Ethics in Context (New York: Columbia University Press, 2010), Astrolabio 15: 242-246. Faria, C. (2012) “Muerte entre las flores: el conflicto entre el ecologismo y la defensa de los animales no humanos” [Death among flowers: the conflict between environmentalism and the defense of nonhuman animals], Vientosur 125: 67-76. !2 Ca#a Faria’s CV, September 2015 Faria, C. (2011) “Sobre o bem de tudo e de todos: a conjunção impossível entre ambientalismo e libertação animal” [On the good of everything and everyone: the impossible conjunc#on between environmentalism and animal libera#on], Ágora 30 (2): 27-41. Faria, C. (2011) “Pessoas não humanas: a consideração moral dos grandes símios e outras criaturas” [Nonhuman persons: the moral considera#on of Great apes and other creatures], Diacrí<ca 25 (2): 35-50. Faria, C. (2010) “Especismo e libertação animal: a reconciliação possível” [Speciesism and animal libera#on: the possible reconcilia#on], review of Zamir, Tzachi, Ethics and the Beast: A Speciesist Argument for Animal Libera<on (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007), Telos 18: 109-120. As editor Faria, C., Paez, E. (2015) “Animals in need. The problem of wild animal suffering and interven#on in nature”, Rela<ons 3 (1): 7-13. Faria, C., Cabrita, M. J. (2013) “Equality, Democracy and Welfare”, Diacrí<ca 27 (2): 7-14. O TALKS “La é#ca de la intervención en la naturaleza y la intuición laissez-faire.” [The ethics of interven#on in nature and the laissez-faire intui#on], I Jornada Recerca en Sostenibilitat, Faculty of Communica#on, Pompeu Fabra University (Barcelona, Spain), 5/06/15. “Dinámica de poblaciones y sus implicaciones para la é#ca de la ges#ón ambiental” [Popula#on dynamics and its implica#ons for the ethics of environmental management], I Congreso Internacional de la Red Española de Filosoa, University of Valencia (Valencia, Spain), 3-5/09/14 “Humanity and domes#city. Two versions of the same prejudice” (with Eze Paez), Humanity and Animality Conference, University College London (London, UK), 15-16/09/14 “Public reason and nonhuman animals” (with Eze Paez), MANCEPT Workshops, University of Manchester (Manchester, UK), 8-10/09/14 “Animal ethics going wild: interven#on in nature on behalf of wild animals”, Seminar of the Philosophy of Law Group, Pompeu Fabra University (Barcelona, Spain), 12/06/14 “If you’re an egalitarian how come are you a speciesist?”, V Mee<ngs on Ethics and Poli<cal Philosophy, University of Minho (Braga, Portugal), 15-16/05/14 “Five comments on Anomalous”, Workshop on Abor<on: Recent Developments, with Jeff Macmahan, Victor Tadros y Sonia Ramos. Pompeu Fabra University (Barcelona, Spain), 27/01/14 “The ethics of environmental management: should we help the Australian horses?, Seminar of the Philosophy of Law Group, Universitat Pompeu Fabra (Barcelona, Spain), 3/07/13 “É#ca animal?” [Animal ethics?], III Jornadas de Filosofia “Filosofia, hoje”, University of Minho, (Braga, Portugal), 19/04/13 !3 Ca#a Faria’s CV, September 2015 “The problem of wild-animal suffering”, III Mee<ngs on Ethics and Poli<cal Philosophy, University of Minho (Braga, Portugal), 20-21/05/12 “Los límites de la consideración moral: oposiciones entre el ecologismo y la defensa de los animales no humanos” [The limits of moral considerability: tensions between environmentalism and the defence of nonhuman animals ] XX Congreso de Jovens Filósofos, University of Coruña, Galiza, Espanha, 26/04/12 “Resis#ng violence in nature” (with Beril Sözmen), The 2nd Annual European Conference for Crical Animal Studies, Charles University (Prague, Czech Republic), 15-16/10/ 11 “Pessoas não humanas: a consideração moral dos grandes símios e outras criaturas” [Nonhuman persons: the moral considerability of Great apes and other creatures], II Mee<ngs on Ethics and Poli<cal Philosophy, University of Minho (Braga, Portugal), 20-21/05/11 O RESEARCH PROJECTS Global constuonalism and global jusce: philosophical foundaons (DER2013-48066-C2-1-R), 2014-2016. Granted by: Spanish Ministry of Science and Innova#on. Main researcher: Josep Joan Moreso i Mateos. Posi#on: Par#cipant researcher Philosophy of Law Group (2014 SGR 626), 2014-2016. Granted by: AGAUR. Main researcher: Josep Joan Moreso i Mateos. Posi#on: Par#cipant researcher O TEACHING “The moral considera#on of nonhuman animals”, ETHICS I, Faculty of Philosophy, University of San#ago de Compostela (Spain), 8/11/12 “The Ethics of Interven#on”, Applied Ethics Seminar, University of San#ago de Compostela, (Spain), 23/11/11 O SERVICES TO THE PROFESSION Scienfic Commiee of ENFA6 (Sixth Na#onal Mee#ng In Analy#c Philosophy), University of Azores, Ponta Delgada, S. Miguel island, Azores (Portugal), 2015 Organizer (with Eze Paez) of the Simposium “Intervención en la Naturaleza: el conflito entre la consideración moral de los animales y la é#ca ambiental”, I Congreso de la Red Española de FilosoQa, University of Valencia (Spain), 2014 Organizer (with Maria João Cabrita) of the Interna#onal Conference IV Mee<ngs on Ethics and Poli<cal Philosophy, University of Minho (Portugal), 2013 Organizing Commi}ee of the III Simposio “FilosoQa y Sociedad”, University of San#ago de Compostela (Spain), 2011 !4 Ca#a Faria’s CV, September 2015 Referee work: Ramon Llull Journal of Applied Ethics Revista de Bioé<ca y Derecho Ágora Diacrí<ca O MEDIA Commissioned arcles Should we intervene in nature to prevent animal suffering? Aeon, 15 July 2015. Other arcles PraccaL Ethics BLog, University of Oxford (UK) The immorality of fox hun#ng (July 17, 2015) Why isn’t the world going vegan? (June 3, 2015) Turning 40: Animal Libera#on in perspec#ve. (April 2, 2015). Picked up by the BBC’s “best long reads in technology and science”. If you’re an egalitarian, how come you’re a speciesist? (February 3, 2015) Should we intervene in nature to help animals? (December 21, 2014) El Caballo de Nietzsche Blog, Eldiario.es (Spain) Liberación Animal, de Peter Singer: 40 años de controversia. (April 22, 2015) Daños en la naturaleza: ciencia y é#ca de la ges#ón ambiental. (December 5, 2014) Heridos, hambrientos, ateridos: ayudando a los animales en la naturaleza. (September 5, 2014) Pensata AnimaL, OLhar AnimaL & ÉJca da Intervenção, ANDA (BraziL) Ecologismo e an#especismo: discrepância cien•fica ou moral? (March 24, 2015) Deixá-los em paz? Ajudando os animais na natureza. (September 25, 2014) A rainha ferida: o caso da leoa Siena e o sofrimento dos animais selvagens (May 4, 2014) Sofrimento distante e a abordagem relacional à é#ca animal.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 4​Th​ MINDING ANIMALS CONFERENCE CIUDAD DE
    th 4 ​ MINDING ANIMALS CONFERENCE ​ CIUDAD DE MÉXICO, 17 TO 24 JANUARY, 2018 SOCIAL PROGRAMME: ROYAL PEDREGAL HOTEL ACADEMIC PROGRAMME: NATIONAL AUTONOMOUS UNIVERSITY OF MEXICO Auditorio Alfonso Caso and Anexos de la Facultad de Derecho FINAL PROGRAMME (Online version linked to abstracts. Download PDF here) 1/47 All delegates please note: ​ 1. Presentation slots may have needed to be moved by the organisers, and may appear in a different place from that of the final printed programme. Please consult the schedule located in the Conference Programme upon arrival at the Conference for your presentation time. 2. Please note that presenters have to ensure the following times for presentation to allow for adequate time for questions from the floor and smooth transition of sessions. Delegates must not stray from their allocated 20 minutes. Further, delegates are welcome to move within sessions, therefore presenters MUST limit their talk to the allocated time. Therefore, Q&A will be AFTER each talk, and NOT at the end of the three presentations. Plenary and Invited Talks – 45 min. presentation and 15 min. discussion (Q&A). 3. For panels, each panellist must stick strictly to a 10 minute time frame, before discussion with the floor commences. 4. Note that co-authors may be presenting at the conference in place of, or with the main author. For all co-authors, delegates are advised to consult the Conference Abstracts link on the Minding Animals website. Use of the term et al is provided where there is more than two authors ​ ​ of an abstract. 5. Moderator notes will be available at all front desks in tutorial rooms, along with Time Sheets (5, 3 and 1 minute Left).
    [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]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Wild-Animal Su Ering and Ways to Reduce It Sentience Politics Research Plans 2016 – 2018
    Wild-Animal Suering and Ways to Reduce It Sentience Politics Research Plans 2016 – 2018 SENTIENCE POLITICS Animals in the wild suer from various causes, including malnutrition, thirst, disease, attacks by other animals, psychological stress, extreme weather conditions, injuries and parasitism. In fact, life in the wild makes up the greatest source of suering on the planet.1 This suering matters, yet is largely neglected by anti-speciesist advocacy. Sentience Politics, and our lead researcher Brian Tomasik in particular, has played a leading role in drawing attention to wild-animal suering as a moral problem, and in pioneering the research in welfare biology needed to address it. Tomasik’s seminal The Importance of Wild Animal Suering – first published in 2009 on the website reducing-suering.org – inspired numerous animal activists, eective altruists and academics to make the reduction of wild-animal suering their priority. This piece – in conjunction with writings by other authors, such as Yew-Kwang Ng, David Pearce, and Oscar Horta – led to the emergence of a growing new movement. Along with the upcoming research itself, Sentience Politics is raising awareness of wild-animal suering “on the ground”: we publish articles and policy papers, host talks and conferences and engage in anti-speciesist (and explicitly “wild-animal-suering-aware”) movement building. Since June 2016, Sentience Politics has greatly increased research on wild-animal suering. Our call for applications generated many high-quality candidates, three of whom we hired as researchers. We are by now confident in our ability to bring together a team that will generate novel research on a regular basis.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethics and Animals Fall 2020
    Ethics and Animals Fall 2020 Description This course examines the morality of our treatment of nonhuman animals. We start with a survey of moral theory. Do animals have moral status? Do we have a right to harm or kill some animals in order to benefit or save others? We consider these questions from a variety of moral perspectives, including consequentialism, Kantian ethics, virtue ethics, and feminist ethics. We then apply these ideas to different kinds of animal use. For example, what is the morality of our treatment of animals in food, research, captivity, and the wild? Finally, we will explore ethical questions that arise for animal activists, including about what ends they should pursue, what means they should take towards those ends, and how they should relate to other social movements. General Information Time: T 5:00{7:30 ET Place: online Instructor: Name: Jeff Sebo Email: jeff[email protected] Office: online Office Hours: M 3-5pm ET 1 Readings The required books for this class are: Julia Driver, Ethics: The Fundamentals; Lori Gruen, Ethics and Animals; and Gary Francione & Robert Garner, The Animal Rights Debate. These books are available online, and the Gruen and Francione & Garner books are also available for free at the NYU library website. All readings not from the required books will be posted on the course website. Grading Your grades will be determined as follows: • Papers (75%): You will write three papers explaining and evaluating the ideas and arguments discussed in class. You will email this paper to [email protected]. For each paper, you can either create your own prompt (provided that you clear it with us in advance) or select from prompts that we create.
    [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]
  • La Argumentación De Singer En Liberación Animal: Concepciones Normativas, Interés En Vivir Y Agregacionismo Diánoia, Vol
    Diánoia ISSN: 0185-2450 [email protected] Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México México HORTA, OSCAR La argumentación de Singer en Liberación animal: concepciones normativas, interés en vivir y agregacionismo Diánoia, vol. LVI, núm. 67, noviembre, 2011, pp. 65-85 Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Distrito Federal, México Disponible en: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=58433540004 Cómo citar el artículo Número completo Sistema de Información Científica Más información del artículo Red de Revistas Científicas de América Latina, el Caribe, España y Portugal Página de la revista en redalyc.org Proyecto académico sin fines de lucro, desarrollado bajo la iniciativa de acceso abierto La argumentación de Singer en Liberación animal: concepciones normativas, interés en vivir y agregacionismo OSCAR HORTA Fundación Española para la Ciencia y la Tecnología/ Rutgers University [email protected] Resumen: Este artículo examina los presupuestos metodológicos, axiológicos y normativos en los que descansa la que posiblemente sea la obra más co- nocida de Peter Singer, Liberación animal. Se exploran las tensiones entre la posición normativa, de compromisos mínimos, que se intenta adoptar en esa obra, y las posiciones de Singer acerca del utilitarismo de las preferencias y el argumento de la reemplazabilidad. Se buscará elucidar en particular el modo en el que surgen tales tensiones al abordarse la consideración del agregacio- nismo y el interés en vivir en relación con el uso de animales no humanos. Palabras clave: especismo, principio de no maleficencia, utilitarismo, valor de la vida Abstract: This paper examines the methodological, axiological and normative assumptions on which Animal Liberation —arguably the most poular work by Peter Singer— rests.
    [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]
  • Jusqu'où Défendre Les Animaux ?
    LES CAHIERS ANTISPÉCISTES JUSQU’OÙ DÉFENDRE LES ANIMAUX ? Tom REGAN Steven BEST David CHAUVET Bernard BAERTSCHI Estiva REUS NUMÉRO 39 MAI 2017 À propos des Cahiers antispécistes Les Cahiers antispécistes sont une revue fondée en 1991. La périodicité est irrégulière. Rédaction : Brigitte Gothière, Estiva Reus, Pierre Sigler. La rédaction choisit les textes en fonction de l’intérêt qu’elle y trouve et des débats qui peuvent en découler, mais les opinions qui y sont exprimées n’engagent que leurs auteurs. La revue ne fonctionne pas sur le principe de soumission spontanée de textes par des auteurs qui seraient ensuite acceptés ou refusés. Site : cahiers-antispécistes.org Mail : [email protected] FaceBook. Les Cahiers antispécistes publient quotidiennement des informations sur la question animale sur leur page Facebook. Se procurer Les Cahiers antispécistes (version papier) Le n°39 des Cahiers antispécistes (de même que le n°35) n’a pas été édité en version papier. Tous les autres numéros ont été imprimés mais certains sont épuisés. Les anciens numéros restants sont gérés par la boutique en ligne de L214. Certains peuvent être directement commandés sur https://boutique.l214.com/36-revues. Si vous cherchez des numéros plus anciens écrire à [email protected] pour savoir s’ils sont encore disponibles. Les Cahiers antispécistes n°39, mai 2017 1 Sommaire Présentation du numéro 39 3 La Rédaction Comment justifier la violence 7 Tom Regan Paralysie du pacifisme 13 Une défense de l’action directe militante et de la « violence » Steven
    [Show full text]
  • Animal-Industrial Complex‟ – a Concept & Method for Critical Animal Studies? Richard Twine
    ISSN: 1948-352X Volume 10 Issue 1 2012 Journal for Critical Animal Studies ISSN: 1948-352X Volume 10 Issue 1 2012 EDITORAL BOARD Dr. Richard J White Chief Editor [email protected] Dr. Nicole Pallotta Associate Editor [email protected] Dr. Lindgren Johnson Associate Editor [email protected] ___________________________________________________________________________ Laura Shields Associate Editor [email protected] Dr. Susan Thomas Associate Editor [email protected] ___________________________________________________________________________ Dr. Richard Twine Book Review Editor [email protected] Vasile Stanescu Book Review Editor [email protected] ___________________________________________________________________________ Carol Glasser Film Review Editor [email protected] ___________________________________________________________________________ Adam Weitzenfeld Film Review Editor [email protected] ___________________________________________________________________________ Dr. Matthew Cole Web Manager [email protected] ___________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD For a complete list of the members of the Editorial Advisory Board please see the Journal for Critical Animal Studies website: http://journal.hamline.edu/index.php/jcas/index 1 Journal for Critical Animal Studies, Volume 10, Issue 1, 2012 (ISSN1948-352X) JCAS Volume 10, Issue 1, 2012 EDITORAL BOARD ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Speciesism? Oscar Horta
    What Is Speciesism? Oscar Horta ABSTRACT : In spite of the considerable literature nowadays existing on the issue of the moral exclusion of nonhuman animals, there is still work to be done concerning the characterization of the conceptual framework with which this question can be appraised. This paper intends to tackle this task. It starts by defining speciesism as the unjustified disadvantageous consideration or treatment of those who are not classified as belonging to a certain species. It then clarifies some common misunderstandings concerning what this means. Next, it rejects the idea that there are different kinds of speciesism. Such an idea may result from confusion because there are (1) different ways in which speciesism can be defended; and (2) different speciesist positions, that is, different positions that assume speciesism among their premises. Depending on whether or not these views assume other criteria for moral consideration apart from speciesism, they can be combined or simple speciesist positions. But speciesism remains in all cases the same idea. Finally, the paper examines the concept of anthropocentrism, the disadvantageous treatment or consideration of those who are not members of the human species. This notion must be conceptually distinguished from speciesism and from misothery (aversion to nonhuman animals). Anthropocentrism is shown to be refuted because it either commits a petitio principia fallacy or it falls prey to two arguments: the argument from species overlap (widely but misleadingly known as “argument from marginal cases”) and the argument from relevance. This rebuttal identifies anthropocentrism as a speciesist view. KEYWORDS : Anthropocentrism • Argument from Relevance • Argument from Species Overlap • Discrimination • Misothery • Speciesism INTRODUCTION For approximately the last three decades, the attention paid to the issue of the moral consideration of nonhuman animals has grown spectacularly.
    [Show full text]
  • La Argumentación De Singer En Liberación Animal: Concepciones Normativas, Interés En Vivir Y Agregacionismo
    La argumentación de Singer en Liberación animal: concepciones normativas, interés en vivir y agregacionismo OSCAR HORTA Fundación Española para la Ciencia y la Tecnología/ Rutgers University [email protected] Resumen: Este artículo examina los presupuestos metodológicos, axiológicos y normativos en los que descansa la que posiblemente sea la obra más co- nocida de Peter Singer, Liberación animal. Se exploran las tensiones entre la posición normativa, de compromisos mínimos, que se intenta adoptar en esa obra, y las posiciones de Singer acerca del utilitarismo de las preferencias y el argumento de la reemplazabilidad. Se buscará elucidar en particular el modo en el que surgen tales tensiones al abordarse la consideración del agregacio- nismo y el interés en vivir en relación con el uso de animales no humanos. Palabras clave: especismo, principio de no maleficencia, utilitarismo, valor de la vida Abstract: This paper examines the methodological, axiological and normative assumptions on which Animal Liberation —arguably the most poular work by Peter Singer— rests. It explores the tensions between the normative position this book intends to adopt, which tries to compromise as little as possible with any specific normative theory, and Singer’s views on preference utilitarianism and the replaceability argument. In particular, the paper tries to assess the way in which such tensions arise when aggregationism and the question of the interest in living are considered in relation to the use of nonhuman animals. Key words: speciesism, principle of nonmaleficence, utilitarianism, value of life 1 . Introducción Las posiciones defendidas por Peter Singer en Liberación animal1 han alcanzado una notable popularidad. De hecho, aunque a menudo se olvide, fue esta obra la que catapultó inicialmente a Singer al primer 1 P.
    [Show full text]