DOCSLIB.ORG

Legal Purgatory: Why Some Animals Are Neither Persons Nor Property

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects CUNY Graduate Center 2-2021 Legal Purgatory: Why Some Animals are Neither Persons nor Property Sharisse Kanet The Graduate Center, City University of New York How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/4114 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] LEGAL PURGATORY: WHY SOME ANIMALS ARE NEITHER PERSONS NOR PROPERTY by Sharisse Kanet A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Philosophy in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, The City University of New York 2021 ©2020 SHARISSE KANET ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii Legal Purgatory: Why Some Animals are Neither Persons nor Property by Sharisse Kanet This manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in Philosophy in satisfaction of the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 09/06/2019 Steven Ross Chair of Examining Committee 09/06/2019 Nickolas Pappas Executive Officer Supervisory Committee: Steven Ross Jesse Prinz Peter Godfrey-Smith Lori Gruen THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK iii ABSTRACT Legal Purgatory: Why Some Animals are Neither Persons nor Property by Sharisse Kanet Advisor: Steven Ross All animals with non-borderline sentience are deserving of certain legal considerations independent of their use and relationship to human beings. That is, all sentient beings should have some rights. Given the current organization of the U.S. legal system, which divides all entities into property or persons, it is not surprising that animals are relegated to property status. I put forth a proposal to fix this whose central suggestion is that we create a third legal designation, legal patient, into which all non-person sentient animals (those which do not properly belong on either current category) would fit. These animals would receive certain limited rights, which would be implemented through legal structures already in place, such as those used in providing legal advocacy for children. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thank you to my teachers and mentors who believed in this project, and to my committee members: Steven Ross, Peter Godfrey-Smith, and Jesse Prinz. My gratitude especially to Lori Gruen who made this work better through her thoughtful and thorough suggestions. Thank you to my mom, who did more proofreading than any sane person would, and to my husband for having faith that this would someday be completed and offering support throughout. I also owe a debt to all the lawyers I pestered over the course of the project, who were evenly split between thinking that the idea was ridiculous and wonderful. v Table of contents Chapter 1: Background and the Current State of Affairs 1 I. Introduction 1 II. Animal Treatment in Farms, Labs, and Zoos 5 III. Current Animal Protection Laws 11 IV. What to Expect in the Chapters Ahead 17 Chapter 2: Sentience matters – Animal Pain and Suffering 25 I. Nociception, Pain, and Identifying Sentience 27 A. Which Animals are Almost Certainly Sentient? 34 B. The Jury is Out on Some Animals… 37 II. Sentiocentrism: Why suffering is the right threshold 38 III. Defending Against Criticisms of Sentiocentrism 44 A. Sentiocentrism does not object to painless killing 44 B. It does not align with the values of Environmentalism 46 Chapter 3: Problematic Paradigms – Current Proposals for Addressing Animal Protections 50 I. An Animal Welfare View – Robert Garner 50 II. Animal Rights Views 57 A. Steven Wise 57 B. Gary Francione 61 III. Other Paradigms 61 A. Shelly Kagan 61 B. Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka 79 Chapter 4: Caught in the Middle – The Gray Space between Personhood and Property 71 I. Criminal and Civil Law 72 II. Persons vs. Property 73 III. Corporations & Fetuses as Legal Entities 76 IV. The Legal Status of Nonhuman Animals 82 A. Legislative Motivations: How We Got Here 83 B. Judicial Ambivalence: What are Animals and What Do They Deserve? 86 V. The Difference Between Protection and Right-Holding 89 VI. David Favre’s Equitable Self-Ownership 92 vi Chapter 5: Legal Patiency – Developing a New Category for Sentient Nonpersons 95 I. A Recap of the Discussion So far 95 II. Which Rights Should SNP’s Get? 97 III. Existing Legal Structures for Human Incompetents 103 IV. Incorporating SNP’s into that Structure 108 V. Bridging Welfare and Rights Views 112 Chapter 6: Application and Practice 117 I. Effects on our legal system 117 II. Reevaluating Animal Uses in Human Industry 121 III. Applications to Wild Animals 125 IV. Legally Incompetent Humans as SNP’s? 127 V. Case Studies 132 VI. Conclusion 138 References 140 vii Chapter 1: Background and the Current State of Affairs I. Introduction There is a growing agreement today that animals need more robust legal protection than they currently have. The past two centuries have seen both increased industrialization of animal use and exploitation and a slowly expanding popular concern for animal welfare. With the advent of factory farms, animal testing regulations for new products, exponential increases in the destruction of animal habitats, and so on, the situation for many animals, both domestic and wild, has been getting consistently worse, as they have been forced to pay the costs of the advancements of our modern society. The atrocities that animals under human care are currently subjected to are various and ubiquitous, from factory farms, to experimentation, to circuses, and so on. (For a review, see Beauchamp 2008.) Some of these uses of animals will be addressed in later chapters in so far as they provide examples of what changes may be necessitated by my proposal. Interestingly, the same abuses which have hurt so many have also brought issues of animal welfare to the forefront in a way they may have not been otherwise. Animal welfare legislation has been expanding in places like Norway, Germany, and Switzerland, to name just a few.1 Often times, these expansions recognize that animals have value beyond their mere instrumental value in their many present-day uses. For instance, Norway’s Animal Welfare Act states “Animals 1 This project is a work about US law; however, I will reference other countries from time to time when comparison seems useful. 1 have an intrinsic value which is irrespective of the usable value they may have for man. Animals shall be treated well and be protected from danger of unnecessary stress and strains.” (2011) In this country, some states have been making advances, for example California’s recent ban on battery cages, (The Times Editorial Board 2014) and the public appears to have begun a slow awakening to the horrors of animal cruelty inflicted on the millions and billions of mammals and birds we use for research, food, etc. This progress is heartening, and it is also insufficient. Even in countries like Norway, the ethics of animal treatment is phrased in terms of welfare, that is, in terms of improving the conditions of animals that we use, without a consideration of the underlying assumption that we may use them at all. Welfarists, such as Robert Garner, generally tend to focus on how we may use nonhuman animals without questioning whether we can use them. Another side of the debate is comprised of a varied group of people we may call animal rights activists, including Steven Wise and Gary Francione, who believe that certain animals should possess rights. What criteria make this determination, and therefore which animals get included, varies by thinker. The suggestion of giving animals rights is often accompanied by the claim that these animals should be made legal persons. Such animal rights activists are usually extraordinarily critical of animal welfare projects as perpetuating a broken system. As Tom Regan has said, “To reform injustice is to prolong injustice.” (Regan 2011, par. 3) Giving certain animals rights is a way to identify them as beings who are more than instrumentally valuable, and deserve consideration because of who they are, not how we feel about them. Other legal, philosophical, and political 2 theorists have offered suggestions, but these are either problematic for their own reasons or do not offer much by way of practical solutions. This gap can be better understood when we consider our insufficiently nuanced legal system. Our legal system acknowledges only two sorts of being: persons and property. The former are beings with rights and the latter are not. Currently all animals are legal property. Many thinkers have aimed to work on improving animals’ conditions within the confines of the property designation, trying to improve living conditions, slaughter methods, and so on. Others have argued for giving some animals the person designation. This would involve the abolition of certain animal-based practices in totem. My project aims to address this space from several angles. First, I will argue that there are fundamental flaws on both sides of this welfare/rights debate. In some ways, I think that even animal rights proponents are asking too little. In focusing on personhood for a small group of animals, as many of them do, they are leaving out many other creatures that require our moral attention. Animal welfarists are also asking too little in that they seem to ignore the important normative difference between being protected as property and having rights. Other proposals, such as Kagan’s, do nothing to address the legal questions at all. As I see it, these issues and others are all symptoms of a larger problem— the acceptance of a legal system with just the categories of persons and property.
Recommended publications
  • Derogatory Discourses of Veganism and the Reproduction of Speciesism in UK 1 National Newspapers Bjos 1348 134..152

    Derogatory Discourses of Veganism and the Reproduction of Speciesism in UK 1 National Newspapers Bjos 1348 134..152

    The British Journal of Sociology 2011 Volume 62 Issue 1 Vegaphobia: derogatory discourses of veganism and the reproduction of speciesism in UK 1 national newspapers bjos_1348 134..152 Matthew Cole and Karen Morgan Abstract This paper critically examines discourses of veganism in UK national newspapers in 2007. In setting parameters for what can and cannot easily be discussed, domi- nant discourses also help frame understanding. Discourses relating to veganism are therefore presented as contravening commonsense, because they fall outside readily understood meat-eating discourses. Newspapers tend to discredit veganism through ridicule, or as being difficult or impossible to maintain in practice. Vegans are variously stereotyped as ascetics, faddists, sentimentalists, or in some cases, hostile extremists. The overall effect is of a derogatory portrayal of vegans and veganism that we interpret as ‘vegaphobia’. We interpret derogatory discourses of veganism in UK national newspapers as evidence of the cultural reproduction of speciesism, through which veganism is dissociated from its connection with debates concerning nonhuman animals’ rights or liberation. This is problematic in three, interrelated, respects. First, it empirically misrepresents the experience of veganism, and thereby marginalizes vegans. Second, it perpetuates a moral injury to omnivorous readers who are not presented with the opportunity to understand veganism and the challenge to speciesism that it contains. Third, and most seri- ously, it obscures and thereby reproduces
  • Cruel Nature: Harmfulness As an Important, Overlooked Dimension in Judgments of Moral Standing ⇑ Jared Piazza , Justin F

    Cruel Nature: Harmfulness As an Important, Overlooked Dimension in Judgments of Moral Standing ⇑ Jared Piazza , Justin F

    Cognition 131 (2014) 108–124 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Cognition journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/COGNIT Cruel nature: Harmfulness as an important, overlooked dimension in judgments of moral standing ⇑ Jared Piazza , Justin F. Landy, Geoffrey P. Goodwin Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, USA article info abstract Article history: Entities that possess moral standing can be wronged and deserve our moral consideration. Received 8 October 2013 Past perspectives on the folk psychology of moral standing have focused exclusively on the Revised 24 December 2013 role of ‘‘patiency’’ (the capacity to experience pain or pleasure) and ‘‘agency’’ (usually Accepted 27 December 2013 defined and operationalized in terms of intelligence or cognitive ability). We contend that harmfulness (i.e., having a harmful vs. benevolent disposition) is an equally if not more important determinant of moral standing. We provide support for this hypothesis across Keywords: four studies using non-human animals as targets. We show that the effect of harmfulness Moral standing on attributions of moral standing is independent from patiency and intelligence (Studies Harmfulness Patiency 1–2), that this effect pertains specifically to an animal’s harmful disposition rather than Agency its capacity to act upon this disposition (Study 3), and that it primarily reflects a parochial Intelligence concern for human welfare in particular (Study 4). Our findings highlight an important, Animals overlooked dimension in the psychology of moral standing that has implications for real-world decisions that affect non-human animals. Our findings also help clarify the con- ditions under which people perceive patiency and agency as related versus truly indepen- dent dimensions.
  • The Great Ape Project — and Beyond*

    The Great Ape Project — and Beyond*

    The Great Ape Project — and Beyond* PAOLA CAVALIERI & PETER SINGER Why the Project? Aristotle refers to human slaves as 'animated property'. The phrase exactly describes the current status of nonhuman animals. Human slavery therefore presents an enlightening parallel to this situation. We shall explore this parallel in order to single out a past response to human slavery that may suggest a suitable way of responding to present-day animal slavery. Not long ago such a parallel would have been considered outrageous. Recently, however, there has been growing recognition of the claim that a sound ethic must be free of bias or arbitrary discrimination based in favour of our own species. This recognition makes possible a more impartial appraisal of the exploitative practices that mark our civilisation. Slavery in the ancient world has been the subject of a lively debate among historians. How did it arise? Why did it end? Was there a characteristic 'slave mode of production'? We do not need to go into all these disputes. We shall focus instead on the distinctive element of slavery: the fact that the human being becomes property in the strict sense of the term. This is sometimes referred to as 'chattel slavery' - a term that stresses the parallel between the human institution, and the ownership of animals, for the term 'cattle' is derived from 'chattel'. Slave societies are those societies of which chattel slavery is a major feature. They are relatively rare in human history. The best known examples existed in the ancient world, and in North and Central America after European colonisation.
  • Framing Farming: Communication Strategies for Animal Rights Critical Animal Studies 2

    Framing Farming: Communication Strategies for Animal Rights Critical Animal Studies 2

    Framing Farming: Communication Strategies for Animal Rights Critical Animal Studies 2 General Editors: Helena Pedersen, Stockholm University (Sweden) Vasile Stănescu, Mercer University (U.S.) Editorial Board: Stephen R.L. Clark, University of Liverpool (U.K.) Amy J. Fitzgerald, University of Windsor (Canada) Anthony J. Nocella, II, Hamline University (U.S.) John Sorenson, Brock University (Canada) Richard Twine, University of London and Edge Hill University (U.K.) Richard J. White, Sheffield Hallam University (U.K.) Framing Farming: Communication Strategies for Animal Rights Carrie P. Freeman Amsterdam - New York, NY 2014 Critical Animal Studies 2. Carrie P. Freeman, Framing Farming: Communication Strategies for Animal Rights. 1. Kim Socha, Women, Destruction, and the Avant-Garde. A Paradigm for Animal Liberation. This book is printed on recycled paper. Cover photo: Jo-Anne McArthur / We Animals The paper on which this book is printed meets the requirements of “ISO 9706:1994, Information and documentation - Paper for documents - Requirements for permanence”. ISBN: 978-90-420-3892-9 E-Book ISBN: 978-94-012-1174-1 © Editions Rodopi B.V., Amsterdam – New York, NY 2014 Printed in The Netherlands Table of Contents List of Images 9 Foreword 11 Author’s perspective and background 11 Acknowledgements 14 Dedication 15 Chapter 1: Introduction 17 Themes and Theses in This Book 19 The Unique Contributions of This Book 20 Social Significance of Vegetarianism & Animal Rights 22 The Structure and Content of This Book 26 Word Choice 29 PART I OVERVIEW OF ANIMAL RIGHTS, VEGETARIANISM, AND COMMUNICATION Chapter 2: Ethical Views on Animals as Fellows & as Food 33 Development of Animal Activism in the United States 34 Western Thought on Other Animals 36 Western Vegetarian Ethics 43 Human Eating Habits 62 Chapter 3: Activist Communication Strategy & Debates 67 Communication and the Social Construction of Reality 68 Strategies for Social Movement Organizations 75 Ideological Framing Debates in U.S.
  • Deepa Mehta (See More on Page 53)

    Deepa Mehta (See More on Page 53)

    table of contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Experimental Cinema: Welcome to the Festival 3 Celluloid 166 The Film Society 14 Pixels 167 Meet the Programmers 44 Beyond the Frame 167 Membership 19 Annual Fund 21 Letters 23 Short Films Ticket and Box Offce Info 26 Childish Shorts 165 Sponsors 29 Shorts Programs 168 Community Partners 32 Music Videos 175 Consulate and Community Support 32 Shorts Before Features 177 MSPFilm Education Credits About 34 Staff 179 Youth Events 35 Advisory Groups and Volunteers 180 Youth Juries 36 Acknowledgements 181 Panel Discussions 38 Film Society Members 182 Off-Screen Indexes Galas, Parties & Events 40 Schedule Grid 5 Ticket Stub Deals 43 Title Index 186 Origin Index 188 Special Programs Voices Index 190 Spotlight on the World: inFLUX 47 Shorts Index 193 Women and Film 49 Venue Maps 194 LGBTQ Currents 51 Tribute 53 Emerging Filmmaker Competition 55 Documentary Competition 57 Minnesota Made Competition 61 Shorts Competition 59 facebook.com/mspflmsociety Film Programs Special Presentations 63 @mspflmsociety Asian Frontiers 72 #MSPIFF Cine Latino 80 Images of Africa 88 Midnight Sun 92 youtube.com/mspflmfestival Documentaries 98 World Cinema 126 New American Visions 152 Dark Out 156 Childish Films 160 2 welcome FILM SOCIETY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S WELCOME Dear Festival-goers… This year, the Minneapolis St. Paul International Film Festival celebrates its 35th anniversary, making it one of the longest-running festivals in the country. On this occasion, we are particularly proud to be able to say that because of your growing interest and support, our Festival, one of this community’s most anticipated annual events and outstanding treasures, continues to gain momentum, develop, expand and thrive… Over 35 years, while retaining a unique flavor and core mission to bring you the best in international independent cinema, our Festival has evolved from a Eurocentric to a global perspective, presenting an ever-broadening spectrum of new and notable film that would not otherwise be seen in the region.
  • On Vegetarianism(S) and Food Choices

    On Vegetarianism(S) and Food Choices

    On Vegetarianism(s) and Food Choices “The symbolism of meat-eating is never neutral. To himself, the meat-eater seems to be eating life. To the vegetarian, he seems to be eating death. There is a kind of gestalt-shift between the two positions…” (Midgley) Steven Davis, “The Least Harm Principle May Require that Humans Consume a Diet...of...Large Herbivores” • What is the argument here, following Regan’s least harm principle? Can you see any different alternatives (see freeganism…) other than the ones he mentions (local agriculture, larger herbivores, ‘everyone hunt’) • This article is a good example of heavily debatable statistics—how does he get his numbers? • Does the question of intentionality matter? (i.e., intended vs. unintended/incidental deaths—246) James Rachels, “The Basic Argument for Vegetarianism” • What is the “basic argument” according to Rachels? (two steps, on 260) • Quoting Scully’s Dominion on pigs and the Omnivore’s Dilemma on ‘steer No. 534’, in a “premodern city” • “it is natural for people to resist arguments that require them to do things they don’t want to do” (how much does this account for opposition to reform, do you think?) Also, “if all of your friends are eating meat, you are unlikely to be moved by a mere argument.” (Pollan, Anthony Bourdain, and others also mention the specifically social aspects of eating, and how being a vegetarian (etc.) can often remove you from important forms of social community). • “Eating shrimp may turn out to be acceptable” from an animal welfare perspective—are there others? Kathryn Paxton George, “A Paradox of Ethical Vegetarianism: Unfairness to Women and Children” • George is saying that Regan/Singer’s ethical requirements “unfairly penalize people who live in certain kinds of economic and environmental circumstances,” because they are “nutritionally vulnerable….All current arguments for ethical vegetarianism treat such nutritional vulnerability as an exception rather than as a norm.
  • An Assessment of Recent Trade Law Developments from an Animal Law Perspective: Trade Law As the Sheep in Wolf's Clothing?

    An Assessment of Recent Trade Law Developments from an Animal Law Perspective: Trade Law As the Sheep in Wolf's Clothing?

    AN ASSESSMENT OF RECENT TRADE LAW DEVELOPMENTS FROM AN ANIMAL LAW PERSPECTIVE: TRADE LAW AS THE SHEEP IN WOLF’S CLOTHING? By Charlotte Blattner* Further development within the field of animal law seems to be at an impasse, lost among the potential paths presented by its traditional influ- ences: international treaty law, domestic animal welfare regulations, and trade law. First, classical elements of global animal treaty law are limited to preservationist aspirations, insusceptible to the questions of how animals are treated or how they cope with their environment. Second, animal welfare regulation is understood as a matter confined to national territories. In cross-border dialogue, animal matters have been reduced to allegations of imperialism, which is not conducive to furthering animal interests. Third, animals are regarded as commodities in international trade law, rendering their regulation an undesirable barrier to trade. These present deficiencies deprive global animal law of its significance as a dynamic instrument re- sponsive to global challenges, be they ethical, environmental, economic, technological, or social in nature. The objective of this paper is to demonstrate future ways out of this impasse. Recent developments in trade law, as demonstrated by four exam- ples found within the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) ‘case law,’ mark an important development for animal law. State objectives expressed through trade law are slowly moving away from anthropocentric considera- tions (i.e., geared to preserve a fraction of animals for human interests) to- wards sentiocentric animal welfare (i.e., aimed at minimizing animal suffering and focusing on animal interests). Thereby, the quality of animal law that developed on the international scene through trade law exceeded the status quo of global animal treaty law.
  • Connexion: a Note on Praxis for Animal Advocates

    Connexion: a Note on Praxis for Animal Advocates

    Dalhousie Law Journal Volume 40 Issue 2 Article 5 10-1-2017 Connexion: A Note on Praxis for Animal Advocates John Enman-Beech Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.schulichlaw.dal.ca/dlj Part of the Animal Law Commons Recommended Citation John Enman-Beech, "Connexion: A Note on Praxis for Animal Advocates" (2017) 40:2 Dal LJ 545. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Schulich Law Scholars. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dalhousie Law Journal by an authorized editor of Schulich Law Scholars. For more information, please contact [email protected]. John Enman-Beech* Connexion: A Note on Praxis for Animal Advocates Effective animal advocacy requires human-animal connexion. I apply a relational approach to unfold this insight into a praxis for animal advocates. Connexion grounds the affective relationships that so often motivate animal advocates. More importantly, it enables animal agency, the ability of animals to act and communicate in ways humans can experience and respond to. With connexion in mind, some weaknesses of previous reform efforts become apparent. I join these in the slogan "abolitionismas disconnexion." In so far as abolitionism draws humans and animals apart, it undermines the movement's social basis, limits its imaginative resources, and deprives animals of a deeper freedom. I evaluate political theories of animals and find that only some can frame a picture of humans and animals living together in connexion. I close by noting the limitations of the connexion lens-we cannot simply create connexions without also evaluating whether they are oppressive-and some practical policy measures that can be taken today to further the goods of connexion Pour 6tre efficace, /a defense des animaux exige une connexion entre /'homme et /'animal.
  • Ethics and Animals Fall 2020

    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.
  • Laboratory Primate Newsletter

    Laboratory Primate Newsletter

    LABORATORY PRIMATE NEWSLETTER Vol. 47, No. 4 October 2008 JUDITH E. SCHRIER, EDITOR JAMES S. HARPER, GORDON J. HANKINSON AND LARRY HULSEBOS, ASSOCIATE EDITORS MORRIS L. POVAR, CONSULTING EDITOR ELVA MATHIESEN, ASSISTANT EDITOR ALLAN M. SCHRIER, FOUNDING EDITOR, 1962-1987 Published Quarterly by the Schrier Research Laboratory Psychology Department, Brown University Providence, Rhode Island ISSN 0023-6861 POLICY STATEMENT The Laboratory Primate Newsletter provides a central source of information about nonhuman primates and re- lated matters to scientists who use these animals in their research and those whose work supports such research. The Newsletter (1) provides information on care and breeding of nonhuman primates for laboratory research, (2) dis- seminates general information and news about the world of primate research (such as announcements of meetings, research projects, sources of information, nomenclature changes), (3) helps meet the special research needs of indi- vidual investigators by publishing requests for research material or for information related to specific research prob- lems, and (4) serves the cause of conservation of nonhuman primates by publishing information on that topic. As a rule, research articles or summaries accepted for the Newsletter have some practical implications or provide general information likely to be of interest to investigators in a variety of areas of primate research. However, special con- sideration will be given to articles containing data on primates not conveniently publishable elsewhere. General descriptions of current research projects on primates will also be welcome. The Newsletter appears quarterly and is intended primarily for persons doing research with nonhuman primates. Back issues may be purchased for $10.00 each.
  • The First Step in the Case for Great Ape Equality: the Argument for Other Minds

    The First Step in the Case for Great Ape Equality: the Argument for Other Minds

    WellBeing International WBI Studies Repository 8-1996 The First Step in the Case for Great Ape Equality: The Argument for Other Minds Kristin Andrews York University Follow this and additional works at: https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/psycho Part of the Animal Studies Commons, Behavior and Ethology Commons, and the Comparative Psychology Commons Recommended Citation Andrews, K. (1996). The first step in the case for great ape equality: the argument for other minds. Etica ed Animali, 8, 131ss. This material is brought to you for free and open access by WellBeing International. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator of the WBI Studies Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The First Step in the Case for Great Ape Equality: The Argument for Other Minds Kristin Andrews A defense of equality for great apes must begin with an understanding of the opposition and an acknowledgement of the most basic point of disagreement. For great apes to gain status as persons in our community, we must begin by determining what the multitude of different definitions of "person" have in common. Finding that great apes fulfill the requirements of any one specific theory of personhood is insufficient, for these theories are highly controversial, and a critique of the theory will undermine the status of great apes as persons. Instead, the first step in the argument for ape equality must be a defense of their self-consciousness. This notion is one thing all plausible theories of personhood have in common. Contrary to most people's common conceptions, many philosophers have argued that great apes, as well as all nonhuman animals, lack consciousness.1 This notion must be demolished before any argument for the equality of great apes can be fully defended.
  • Index to Volume 26 January to December 2016 Compiled by Patricia Coward

    Index to Volume 26 January to December 2016 Compiled by Patricia Coward

    THE INTERNATIONAL FILM MAGAZINE Index to Volume 26 January to December 2016 Compiled by Patricia Coward How to use this Index The first number after a title refers to the issue month, and the second and subsequent numbers are the page references. Eg: 8:9, 32 (August, page 9 and page 32). THIS IS A SUPPLEMENT TO SIGHT & SOUND Index 2016_4.indd 1 14/12/2016 17:41 SUBJECT INDEX SUBJECT INDEX After the Storm (2016) 7:25 (magazine) 9:102 7:43; 10:47; 11:41 Orlando 6:112 effect on technological Film review titles are also Agace, Mel 1:15 American Film Institute (AFI) 3:53 Apologies 2:54 Ran 4:7; 6:94-5; 9:111 changes 8:38-43 included and are indicated by age and cinema American Friend, The 8:12 Appropriate Behaviour 1:55 Jacques Rivette 3:38, 39; 4:5, failure to cater for and represent (r) after the reference; growth in older viewers and American Gangster 11:31, 32 Aquarius (2016) 6:7; 7:18, Céline and Julie Go Boating diversity of in 2015 1:55 (b) after reference indicates their preferences 1:16 American Gigolo 4:104 20, 23; 10:13 1:103; 4:8, 56, 57; 5:52, missing older viewers, growth of and A a book review Agostini, Philippe 11:49 American Graffiti 7:53; 11:39 Arabian Nights triptych (2015) films of 1970s 3:94-5, Paris their preferences 1:16 Aguilar, Claire 2:16; 7:7 American Honey 6:7; 7:5, 18; 1:46, 49, 53, 54, 57; 3:5: nous appartient 4:56-7 viewing films in isolation, A Aguirre, Wrath of God 3:9 10:13, 23; 11:66(r) 5:70(r), 71(r); 6:58(r) Eric Rohmer 3:38, 39, 40, pleasure of 4:12; 6:111 Aaaaaaaah! 1:49, 53, 111 Agutter, Jenny 3:7 background