DOCSLIB.ORG

Animal Rights the International Library of Essays on Rights Series Editor: Tom Campbell

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Animal Rights the International Library of Essays on Rights Series Editor: Tom Campbell Animal Rights The International Library of Essays on Rights Series Editor: Tom Campbell Titles in the Series: Disability Rights Human Rights and Corporations Peter Blanck David Kinley The Right to a Fair Trial Genocide and Human Rights Thom Brooks Mark Lattimer Indigenous Rights Animal Rights Anthony J. Connolly Clare Palmer Civil Rights and Security Social Rights David Dyzenhaus Lord Raymond Plant and Selina Chen Children’s Rights, Volumes I and II Gender and Rights Michael D.A. Freeman Deborah L. Rhode and Carol Sanger Language and Cultural Rights Health Rights Leslie Green Michael Selgelid and Thomas Pogge Consumer Rights Theories of Rights Geraint Howells and Iain Ramsay C.L. Ten Group Rights Bills of Rights Peter Jones Mark Tushnet Animal Rights Edited by Clare Palmer Washington University in St Louis, USA © Clare Palmer 2008. For copyright of individual articles please refer to the Acknowledgements. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. Wherever possible, these reprints are made from a copy of the original printing, but these can themselves be of very variable quality. Whilst the publisher has made every effort to ensure the quality of the reprint, some variability may inevitably remain. Published by Ashgate Publishing Limited Gower House Croft Road Aldershot Hampshire GU11 3HR England Ashgate Publishing Company Suite 420 101 Cherry Street Burlington, VT 05401-4405 USA Ashgate website: http://www.ashgate.com British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Animal rights. – (The international library of essays on rights) 1. Animal rights 2. Human-animal relationships 3. Animal welfare – Law and legislation I. Palmer, Clare, 1967– 179.3 Library of Congress Control Number: 2007930998 ISBN: 978–0–7546–2741–8 Contents Acknowledgements ix Series Preface xi Introduction xiii PART I ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF ANIMAL RIGHTS 1 Peter Singer (1976), ‘All Animals Are Equal’, in Tom Regan and Peter Singer (eds), Animal Rights and Human Obligations, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp. 73–86. 3 2 Tom Regan (1985), ‘The Case for Animal Rights’, in Peter Singer (ed.), In Defense of Animals, New York: Harper & Row, pp. 13–26. 17 3 Mary Anne Warren (1983), ‘The Rights of the Nonhuman World’, in Robert Elliot and Arran Gare (eds), Environmental Philosophy, St Lucia, Queensland: University of Queensland Press, pp. 109–34. 31 4 James Rachels (1989), ‘Why Animals Have a Right to Liberty’, in Peter Singer and Tom Regan (eds), Animal Rights and Human Obligations (2nd edn), Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, pp. 122–31. 57 PART II CRITICAL VIEWS ON ANIMAL RIGHTS – AND SOME RESPONSES 5 R.G. Frey (1977), ‘Animal Rights’, Analysis, 37, pp.186–89. 69 6 Dale Jamieson and Tom Regan (1978), ‘Animal Rights: A Reply to Frey’, Analysis, 38, pp. 32–36. 73 7 H.J. McCloskey (1979), ‘Moral Rights and Animals’, Inquiry, 22, pp. 23–54. 79 8 Evelyn B. Pluhar (1981), ‘Must an Opponent of Animal Rights also be an Opponent of Human Rights?’, Inquiry, 24, pp. 229–41. 111 9 Jan Narveson (1983), ‘Animal Rights Revisited’, in Harlan B. Miller and William H. Williams (eds), Ethics and Animals, Clifton, NJ: Humana Press, pp. 45–59. 125 10 Paul W. Taylor (1987), ‘Inherent Value and Moral Rights’, Monist, 70, pp. 15–30. 149 11 Peter Singer (1987), ‘Animal Liberation or Animal Rights?’, Monist, 70, pp. 3–14. 165 12 Dale Jamieson (1990), ‘Rights, Justice, and Duties to Provide Assistance: A Critique of Regan’s Theory of Rights’, Ethics, 100, pp. 349–62. 177 13 Josephine Donovan (1990), ‘Animal Rights and Feminist Theory’, Signs, 15, pp. 350–75. 191 14 Mark Sagoff (1984), ‘Animal Liberation and Environmental Ethics: Bad Marriage, Quick Divorce’, Osgood Hall Law Review, 22, pp. 297–307. 217 vi Animal Rights 15 Ted Benton (1993), ‘Animal Rights and Social Relations’, in Andrew Dobson and Paul Lucardie (eds), The Politics of Nature, London: Routledge, pp. 161–76. 229 16 Keith Burgess-Jackson (1998), ‘Doing Right by our Animal Companions’, Journal of Ethics, 2, pp. 159–85. 245 PART III ANIMAL RIGHTS AND HUMAN USES 17 Cora Diamond (1978), ‘Eating Meat and Eating People’, Philosophy, 53, pp. 465–79. 275 18 Tom Regan (1980), ‘Utilitarianism, Vegetarianism, and Animal Rights’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 9, pp. 305–24. 291 19 Bernard E. Rollin (1991), ‘Social Ethics, Animal Rights, and Agriculture’, in Charles Blatz (ed.), Ethics and Agriculture, Moscow: University of Idaho Press, pp. 458–66. 311 20 Carl Cohen (1986), ‘The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research’, New England Journal of Medicine, 315, pp. 865–66. 321 21 Nathan Nobis (2004), ‘On Carl Cohen’s “Kind” Arguments For Animal Rights and Against Animal Rights’, Journal of Applied Philosophy, 21, pp. 43–59. 327 22 Neil Levy (2004), ‘Cohen and Kinds: A Response to Nathan Nobis’, Journal of Applied Philosophy, 21, pp. 213–17. 345 23 Deborah Slicer (1991), ‘Your Daughter or Your Dog? A Feminist Assessment of the Animal Research Issue’, Hypatia, 6, pp. 108–24. 351 24 David Degrazia (1999), ‘The Ethics of Animal Research: What are the Prospects for Agreement?’, Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 8, pp. 23–34. 369 25 Donald G. Lindburg (1999), ‘Zoos and the Rights of Animals’, Zoo Biology, 18, pp. 433–48. 381 PART IV POLITICAL AND LEGAL RIGHTS FOR ANIMALS 26 Joel Feinberg (1978), ‘Human Duties and Animal Rights’, in Richard Morris and Michael Fox (eds), On The Fifth Day: Animal Rights and Human Ethics, Acropolis Books: Washington DC, pp. 45–69. 399 27 Gary L. Francione (2006), ‘Taking Sentience Seriously’, Journal of Animal Law and Ethics, 1, pp. 1–20. 425 28 Richard A. Epstein (2002), ‘Animals as Subjects, or Objects, of Rights’, in Martha Nussbaum and Cass Sunstein (eds), Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 143–61. 447 29 John Hadley (2005), ‘Nonhuman Animal Property: Reconciling Environmentalism and Animal Rights’, Journal of Social Philosophy, 36, pp. 305–15. 467 Animal Rights vii 30 Steven M. Wise (2001), ‘A Great Shout: Legal Rights for Great Apes’, in Benjamin B. Beck et al. (eds), Great Apes and Humans, Washington, DC and London: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 274–94. 479 31 Robert Goodin, Carole Pateman and Roy Pateman (1997), ‘Simian Sovereignty’, Political Theory, 25, pp. 821–49. 501 Index 531 Acknowledgements The editor and publishers wish to thank the following for permission to use copyright material. Blackwell Publishing for the essays: Tom Regan (1985), ‘The Case for Animal Rights’, in Peter Singer (ed.), In Defense of Animals, New York: Harper & Row, pp. 13–26; Tom Regan (1980), ‘Utilitarianism, Vegetarianism, and Animal Rights’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 9, pp. 305–24; Neil Levy (2004), ‘Cohen and Kinds: A Response to Nathan Nobis’, Journal of Applied Philosophy, 21, pp. 213–17. Copyright © 2004 Society for Applied Philosophy; John Hadley (2005), ‘Nonhuman Animal Property: Reconciling Environmentalism and Animal Rights’, Journal of Social Philosophy, 36, pp. 305–15. Copyright © 2005 Blackwell Publishing; Nathan Nobis (2004), ‘On Carl Cohen’s “Kind” Argument For Animal Rights and Against Animal Rights’, Journal of Applied Philosophy, 21, pp. 43–59. Copyright © 2004 Society for Applied Philosophy. Cambridge University Press for the essays: Cora Diamond (1978), ‘Eating Meat and Eating People’, Philosophy, 53, pp. 465–79. Copyright © Royal Institute of Philosophy; David Degrazia (1999), ‘The Ethics of Animal Research: What are the Prospects for Agreement?’, Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 8, pp. 23–34. Copyright © 1999 Cambridge University Press. Copyright Clearance Center for the essays: Robert Goodin, Carole Pateman and Roy Pateman (1997), ‘Simian Sovereignty’, Political Theory, 25, pp. 821–49. Copyright © 1997 Sage Publications; Steven M. Wise (2001), ‘A Great Shout: Legal Rights for Great Apes’, in Benjamin B. Beck et al. (eds), Great Apes and Humans, Washington, DC and London: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 274–94. Gary L. Francione (2006), ‘Taking Sentience Seriously’, Journal of Animal Law and Ethics, 1, pp.1–20. Copyright © 2006 Gary L. Francione. Indiana University Press for the essay: Deborah Slicer (1991), ‘Your Daughter or Your Dog? A Feminist Assessment of the Animal Research Issue’, Hypatia, 6, pp. 108–24. Copyright © 1991 Deborah Slicer. Oxford University Press for the essay: Richard A. Epstein (2002), ‘Animals as Subjects, or Objects, of Rights’, in Martha Nussbaum and Cass Sunstein (eds), Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 143–61. Publishing Division of the Massachusetts Medical Society for the essay: Carl Cohen (1986), ‘The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research’, New England Journal of Medicine, 315, pp. 865–66. Copyright © 1986 Massachusetts Medical Society. x Animal Rights Peter Singer (1976), ‘All Animals Are Equal’, in Tom Regan and Peter Singer (eds), Animal Rights and Human Obligations, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp. 73–86. Copyright © 1976 Peter Singer. Springer for the essay: Jan Narveson (1983), ‘Animal Rights Revisited’, in Harlan B. Miller and William H. Williams (eds), Ethics and Animals, Clifton, NJ: Humana Press, pp. 45–59. Taylor and Francis for the essays: H.J. McCloskey (1979), ‘Moral Rights and Animals’, Inquiry, 22, pp. 23–54; Evelyn B. Pluhar (1981), ‘Must an Opponent of Animal Rights also be an Opponent of Human Rights?’, Inquiry, 24, pp. 229–41. University of Chicago Press for the essay: Josephine Donovan (1990), ‘Animal Rights and Feminist Theory’, Signs, 15, pp. 350–75. Copyright © 1990 University of Chicago Press. Every effort has been made to trace all the copyright holders, but if any have been inadvertently overlooked the publishers will be pleased to make the necessary arrangement at the first opportunity.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Are Illegal Direct Actions by Animal Rights Activists Ethically Vigilante?
    260 BETWEEN THE SPECIES Is the Radical Animal Rights Movement Ethically Vigilante? ABSTRACT Following contentious debates around the status and justifiability of illegal direct actions by animal rights activists, we introduce a here- tofore unexplored perspective that argues they are neither terrorist nor civilly disobedient but ethically vigilante. Radical animal rights movement (RARM) activists are vigilantes for vulnerable animals and their rights. Hence, draconian measures by the constitutional state against RARM vigilantes are both disproportionate and ille- gitimate. The state owes standing and toleration to such principled vigilantes, even though they are self-avowed anarchists and anti-stat- ists—unlike civil disobedients—repudiating allegiance to the con- stitutional order. This requires the state to acknowledge the ethical nature of challenges to its present regime of toleration, which assigns special standing to illegal actions in defense of human equality, but not equality and justice between humans and animals. Michael Allen East Tennessee State University Erica von Essen Environmental Communications Division Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Volume 22, Issue 1 Fall 2018 http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/bts/ 261 Michael Allen and Erica von Essen Introduction We explore the normative status of illegal actions under- taken by the Radical Animal Rights Movement (RARM), such as animal rescue, trespass, and sabotage as well as confronta- tion and intimidation. RARM typically characterizes these ac- tions as examples of direct action rather than civil disobedience (Milligan 2015, Pellow 2014). Moreover, many RARM activ- ists position themselves as politically anarchist, anti-statist, and anti-capitalist (Best 2014, Pellow 2014). Indeed, the US and UK take these self-presentations at face value, responding to RARM by introducing increasingly draconian legislation that treats them as terrorists (Best 2014, McCausland, O’Sullivan and Brenton 2013, O’Sullivan 2011, Pellow 2014).
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Farm" Is the Story of a Farm Where the Animals Expelled Their
    Cover Page The handle http://hdl.handle.net/1887/32376 holds various files of this Leiden University dissertation Author: Vugts, Berrie Title: The case against animal rights : a literary intervention Issue Date: 2015-03-18 Introduction The last four decades have shown an especially intense and thorough academic reflection on the relation between man and animal. This is evidenced by the rapid growth of journals on the question of the animal within the fields of the humanities and social sciences worldwide.1 Yet also outside the academy animals now seem to preoccupy the popular mindset more than ever before. In 2002, the Netherlands was the first country in the world where a political party was established (the so-called “Partij voor de Dieren” or PvdD: Party for the Animals) that focused predominantly on animal issues. Heated discussions about factory-farming, the related spread of diseases (BSE/Q Fever), hunting and fishing practices, the inbreeding of domestic animals, are now commonplace. Animals, as we tend to call a large range of incredibly diverse creatures, come to us in many different ways. We encounter them as our pets and on our plates, animation movies dominate the charts and artists in sometimes rather experimental genres engage in the question of the animal.2 Globally speaking, animals might be considered key players in the climate debate insofar as the alarming rate of extinction of certain species is often taken to be indicative of our feeble efforts at preserving what is commonly referred to as “nature.” At the same time, these rates serve, albeit indirectly, as a grim reminder of the possible end of human existence itself.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change Impacts on Free-Living Nonhuman Animals
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Redfame Publishing: E-Journals Studies in Media and Communication Vol. 7, No. 1; June 2019 ISSN: 2325-8071 E-ISSN: 2325-808X Published by Redfame Publishing URL: http://smc.redfame.com Climate Change Impacts on Free-Living Nonhuman Animals. Challenges for Media and Communication Ethics Núria Almiron1, Catia Faria2 1Department of Communication, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Roc Boronat, 138 08018 Barcelona, Spain 2Centro de Ética, Política e Sociedade, ILCH, Universidade do Minho, Campus de Gualtar, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal Correspondence: Núria Almiron, Department of Communication, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Roc Boronat, 138 08018 Barcelona, Spain. Received: April 21, 2019 Accepted: May 21, 2019 Online Published: May 29, 2019 doi:10.11114/smc.v7i1.4305 URL: https://doi.org/10.11114/smc.v7i1.4305 Abstract The mainstream discussion regarding climate change in politics, public opinion and the media has focused almost exclusively on preventing the harms humans suffer due to global warming. Yet climate change is already having an impact on free-living nonhumans, which raises unexplored ethical concerns from a nondiscriminatory point of view. This paper discusses the inherent ethical challenge of climate change impacts on nonhuman animals living in nature and argues that the media and communication ethics cannot avoid addressing the issue. The paper further argues that media ethics needs to mirror animal ethics by rejecting moral anthropocentrism. Keywords: media ethics, egalitarianism, climate change, wildlife, anthropocentrism 1. Introduction Since evidence of climate change was brought to light by the first Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1990, concerns regarding the issue have focused almost exclusively on preventing the harm humans suffer due to global warming.
    [Show full text]
  • 2. Animal Ethics
    2. Animal ethics It was started to provide animal welfare and stop cruel practices on animals, for example factory farming, animal testing, using animals for experimentation or for entertainment. In the most of Western philosophy animals were considered as beings without moral standing, namely those that do not have to be included into our moral choices. The very typical example of this approach is the Cartesian one, according to Rene Descartes (1596-1650), animals are just simple machines that cannot experience pain. The philosopher was known for making vivisections on living animals and claiming that none of the animals could feel the pain during this. In consequence of this approach until modern times there were conducted many unnecessary and cruel experiments with animal usage, also animal’s condition at factory farms or in entrainment were terrible. All these practices caused a huge amount of suffering of animals. The approach to animals was changed with Peter Singer’s influential book on Animal Liberation (1975). Singer raised the issue that animals can suffer and amount of suffering that they experience is not worth what we gain from these cruel practices. His argumentation was utilitarian, which is one of the approaches of normative ethics. Deontological and utilitarian argumentation in animal ethics Normative ethics aims at providing moral standards that regulate right and wrong conduct. This may involve articulating the good habits that we should acquire, the duties that we should follow, or the consequences of our behavior on others. The most popular approaches to normative theory are: deonotology and conseqentialism. The word deontology derives from the Greek words for duty (deon) and science (or study) of (logos).
    [Show full text]
  • The Ethics of the Meat Paradox
    The Ethics of the Meat Paradox Lars Ursin* The meat paradox—to like eating meat, but dislike killing and harming animals—confronts omnivores with a powerful contradiction between eating and caring for animals. The paradox, however, trades on a conflation of the illegitimacy of harming and killing animals. While harming animals is morally wrong, killing animals can be legitimate if done with minimal suffering and respect for the moral status of the animal. This moral status demands the ac- knowledgement of a certain justification for killing animals that makes modesty a virtue of the omnivore. The psychological problem with regard to killing animals can persist even if the moral tension is weakened, but only to a certain degree, since emotions and principles are interdependent in moral reasoning. Virtuous meat consumption demands a willingness to face the conflicting feelings involved in killing animals and to tolerate the resulting tension. INTRODUCTION Humans and animals interact in a number of ways and establish a diversity of relationships. Humans relate to animals as members of the family, as research objects in the laboratory, as guide dogs, trained animals in sports and shows, and still many other kinds of relations. In some of these relations, animals are edible beings. The relation between humans and animals that are eaten is a special one. Like animals sacrificed for research purposes, the animals we eat are killed by us. The acceptance and legitimacy of this killing is thus an essential part of eating animals. By eating animals, we enter into a very intimate relation with the animal. We eat parts of the animal and digest the parts, thus allowing these parts to be absorbed into our bodies.
    [Show full text]
  • Lands of the Lakota: Policy, Culture and Land Use on the Pine Ridge
    1 Lands of the Lakota: Policy, Culture and Land Use on the Pine Ridge Reservation Joseph Stromberg Senior Honors Thesis Environmental Studies and Anthropology Washington University in St. Louis 2 Abstract Land is invested with tremendous historical and cultural significance for the Oglala Lakota Nation of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. Widespread alienation from direct land use among tribal members also makes land a key element in exploring the roots of present-day problems—over two thirds of the reservation’s agricultural income goes to non-Natives, while the majority of households live below the poverty line. In order to understand how current patterns in land use are linked with federal policy and tribal culture, this study draws on three sources: (1) archival research on tribal history, especially in terms of territory loss, political transformation, ethnic division, economic coercion, and land use; (2) an account of contemporary problems on the reservation, with an analysis of current land policy and use pattern; and (3) primary qualitative ethnographic research conducted on the reservation with tribal members. Findings indicate that federal land policies act to effectively block direct land use. Tribal members have responded to policy in ways relative to the expression of cultural values, and the intent of policy has been undermined by a failure to fully understand the cultural context of the reservation. The discussion interprets land use through the themes of policy obstacles, forced incorporation into the world-system, and resistance via cultural sovereignty over land use decisions. Acknowledgements I would like to sincerely thank the Buder Center for American Indian Studies of the George Warren Brown School of Social Work as well as the Environmental Studies Program, for support in conducting research.
    [Show full text]
  • Rolston on Animals, Ethics, and the Factory Farm
    [Expositions 6.1 (2012) 29–40] Expositions (online) ISSN: 1747–5376 Unnaturally Cruel: Rolston on Animals, Ethics, and the Factory Farm CHRISTIAN DIEHM University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point In 2010, over nine billion animals were killed in the United States for human consumption. This included nearly 1 million calves, 2.5 million sheep and lambs, 34 million cattle, 110 million hogs, 242 million turkeys, and well over 8.7 billion chickens (USDA 2011a; 2011b). Though hundreds of slaughterhouses actively contributed to these totals, more than half of the cattle just mentioned were killed at just fourteen plants. A slightly greater percentage of hogs was killed at only twelve (USDA 2011a). Chickens were processed in a total of three hundred and ten federally inspected facilities (USDA 2011b), which means that if every facility operated at the same capacity, each would have slaughtered over fifty-three birds per minute (nearly one per second) in every minute of every day, adding up to more than twenty-eight million apiece over the course of twelve months.1 Incredible as these figures may seem, 2010 was an average year for agricultural animals. Indeed, for nearly a decade now the total number of birds and mammals killed annually in the US has come in at or above the nine billion mark, and such enormous totals are possible only by virtue of the existence of an equally enormous network of industrialized agricultural suppliers. These high-volume farming operations – dubbed “factory farms” by the general public, or “Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)” by state and federal agencies – are defined by the ways in which they restrict animals’ movements and behaviors, locate more and more bodies in less and less space, and increasingly mechanize many aspects of traditional husbandry.
    [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]
  • Pandemics: a Very Short Introduction VERY SHORT INTRODUCTIONS Are for Anyone Wanting a Stimulating and Accessible Way Into a New Subject
    Pandemics: A Very Short Introduction VERY SHORT INTRODUCTIONS are for anyone wanting a stimulating and accessible way into a new subject. They are written by experts, and have been translated into more than 40 different languages. The series began in 1995, and now covers a wide variety of topics in every discipline. The VSI library now contains over 450 volumes—a Very Short Introduction to everything from Indian philosophy to psychology and American history and relativity—and continues to grow in every subject area. Very Short Introductions available now: ACCOUNTING Christopher Nobes ANAESTHESIA Aidan O’Donnell ADOLESCENCE Peter K. Smith ANARCHISM Colin Ward ADVERTISING Winston Fletcher ANCIENT ASSYRIA Karen Radner AFRICAN AMERICAN RELIGION ANCIENT EGYPT Ian Shaw Eddie S. Glaude Jr ANCIENT EGYPTIAN ART AND AFRICAN HISTORY John Parker and ARCHITECTURE Christina Riggs Richard Rathbone ANCIENT GREECE Paul Cartledge AFRICAN RELIGIONS Jacob K. Olupona THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST AGNOSTICISM Robin Le Poidevin Amanda H. Podany AGRICULTURE Paul Brassley and ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY Julia Annas Richard Soffe ANCIENT WARFARE ALEXANDER THE GREAT Harry Sidebottom Hugh Bowden ANGELS David Albert Jones ALGEBRA Peter M. Higgins ANGLICANISM Mark Chapman AMERICAN HISTORY Paul S. Boyer THE ANGLO-SAXON AGE AMERICAN IMMIGRATION John Blair David A. Gerber THE ANIMAL KINGDOM AMERICAN LEGAL HISTORY Peter Holland G. Edward White ANIMAL RIGHTS David DeGrazia AMERICAN POLITICAL HISTORY THE ANTARCTIC Klaus Dodds Donald Critchlow ANTISEMITISM Steven Beller AMERICAN POLITICAL PARTIES ANXIETY Daniel Freeman and AND ELECTIONS L. Sandy Maisel Jason Freeman AMERICAN POLITICS THE APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS Richard M. Valelly Paul Foster THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY ARCHAEOLOGY Paul Bahn Charles O.
    [Show full text]
  • Living with Animals Conference Co-Organized by Robert W. Mitchell, Radhika N
    Living with Animals Conference Co-organized by Robert W. Mitchell, Radhika N. Makecha, & Michał Piotr Pręgowski Eastern Kentucky University, 19-21 March 2015 Cover design: Kasey L. Morris Conference overview Each day begins with a keynote speaker, and follows with two tracks (in separate locations) that will run concurrently. Breakfast foods and coffee/tea/water will be available prior to the morning keynotes. Coffee breaks (i.e., snacks and coffee/tea/water) are scheduled between sequential groups of talks. Thus, for example, if one session is from 9:05-10:15, and the next session is 10:40-11:40, there is a coffee break from 10:15-10:40. Drinks and edibles should be visible at or near the entry to the rooms where talks are held. Book display: Throughout the conference in Library Room 201, there is a book display. Several university presses have generously provided books for your perusal (as well as order sheets), and some conference participants will be displaying their books as well. Thursday features the “Living with Horses” sessions, as well as concurrent sessions, and has an optional (pre-paid) trip to Berea for shopping and dinner at the Historic Boone Tavern Restaurant. Friday features the “Teaching with Animals” sessions throughout the morning and early afternoon (which includes a boxed lunch during panel discussions and a movie showing and discussion); “Living with Animals” sessions continuing in the late afternoon, and a Conference Dinner at Masala Indian restaurant. Saturday includes “Living with Animals” sessions throughout the day and Poster Presentations during a buffet lunch. In addition, there is the optional trip to the White Hall State Historic Site (you pay when you arrive at the site).
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix C Cultural Resources Report
    APPENDIX C CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED FORMOSA SPECIFIC PLAN AT SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD, WEST HOLLYWOOD LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: David DeGrazia, Senior Planner City of West Hollywood Community Development Department 8300 Santa Monica Boulevard West Hollywood, CA 90069 Prepared by: EDAW, Inc. 515 South Flower Street, 9th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071 (213) 593-7700 Authors: Candace Ehringer, M.A. Angel Tomes, M.A. Monica Strauss, M.A. December 2007 U.S.G.S. Quadrangles: Hollywood, CA Keywords: West Hollywood, Santa Monica Boulevard, Faith Plating, Los Angeles County TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page MANAGEMENT SUMMARY.....................................................................................................iii INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 Report Organization............................................................................................................ 1 Project Personnel ................................................................................................................ 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION.............................................................................................................3 Project Location and Setting............................................................................................... 3 Project Components...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • What a Jew Should Do
    I If You Really Care About Animals, You Need to Read The ANIMALS' AGENDA WHAT A JEW SHOULD DO Roberta Kalechofsky Kalechofsky Jews for Jesus Jesus Editors' Note: This article is a response to an article by Sidney Gendin, "What Should a Jew Do?", published in Between the Species, To say you love animals is one vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 25-32. thing, but it's important to know what you're talking about if you're really going to do something to help them. idney Gendin's review of Richard Schwartz's Covering a range of issues from fac­ book, Judaism and Vegetarianism and of tory farming to Native trapping, § Rabbi Bleich's article in Animal Sacrifices: from endangered species to com­ panion animals, we have been a Religious Perspectives on the Use ofAnimals in Science is valuable resource for nine years. We premised on the mistaken idea that what separates are your best connection with the Richard Schwartz's involvement in vegetarianism people and events that are making and animal rights from Rabbi Bleich's apparent animal rights one of the major movements of the twentieth century. indifference to them is that the former represents the Reform position in Judaism while the latter ~~~~ represents the Orthodox posture. &®rn~A To begin with, Richard Schwartz himself is not a The International Magazine Reform Jew. Though he eschews labels like of Animal Rights & Ecology '-------------­'-------------- "Orthodox" or "Conservative" and prefers to call ~ himself simply "committed," the congregation he ' I want to subscribe to ~ belongs to is Orthodox, and his practice would be • The ANIMALS' AGENDA.
    [Show full text]