DOCSLIB.ORG

Animals: Ethics, Rights & Law—A Bibliography

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Animals: Ethics, Rights & Law—A Bibliography Animals: Ethics, Rights & Law—A Bibliography By Patrick S. O’Donnell (2006) Department of Philosophy Santa Barbara City College This bibliography is not exhaustive, however, at least with regard to books, it well represents what is more or less available. I have included only a comparatively few number of journal articles, being far more selective here in order to keep the list manageable (less than 500 entries). Indeed, also toward that end—with a few exceptions—I chose ‘about 1980’ as an arbitrary cut-off date (thus one should not assume anything before that period is somehow without merit). Should you know of a book or article conspicuous by its absence (i.e. you’re fairly convinced of its high quality), please let me know: [email protected]. Some of the titles do not, strictly speaking, fall within the categories of ethics, rights, and law. In such cases, I’ve included them either because they touch upon presuppositions, assumptions or premises essential to this or that argument found in the literature, or, they are exceptionally lucid with respect to a subsidiary topic within animal ethics, rights, and law. Finally, the bulk of this list would not have been possible without the excellent bibliography in Angus Taylor’s wonderful book, Animals and Ethics: An Overview of the Philosophical Debate (2003). Acampora, Ralph R. ‘Extinction by Exhibition: Looking at and in the Zoo,’ Human Ecology Review 5: 1-4, 1998. Adams, Carol J. The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory. New York: Continuum, 1990. Adams, Carol J. Neither Man Nor Beast: Feminism and the Defense of Animals. New York: Continuum, 1995. Adams, Carol J. ‘“Mad Cow” Disease and the Animal Industrial Complex: An Ecofeminist Analysis,’ Organization and Environment 10: 26-51, 1997. Adams, Carol J. Living Among Meat Eaters: The Vegetarian’s Survival Handbook. New York: Three Rivers Press, 2001. Adams, Carol J. The Inner Art of Vegetarianism: Spiritual Practices for Body and Soul. New York: Lantern Books, 2001. Adams, Carol J. The Pornography of Meat. New York: Continuum, 2003. Adams, Carol J. and Josephine Donovan, eds. Animals & Women: Feminist Theoretical Explorations. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1995. Adams, Carol J. and Josephine Donovan, eds. Beyond Animal Rights: A Feminist Caring Ethic for the Treatment of Animals. New York: Continuum, 1996. Allen, Colin, ‘Animal Consciousness,’ The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2005 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2005/entries/consciousness-animal/ . Anderson, Stephen R. Doctor Doolittle’s Delusion: Animals and the Uniqueness of Human Language. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2004. Arluke, Arnold. Just a Dog: Understanding Animal Cruelty and Ourselves. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 2006. Arluke, Arnold and Clinton R. Sanders. Regarding Animals: Animals, Culture, and Society. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1996. Armstrong, Susan J. and Richard G. Botzler, eds. The Animal Ethics Reader. New York: Routledge, 2003. Ascione, Frank R. Children and Animals: Exploring the Roots of Kindness and Cruelty. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press, 2005. Austen, Mark and Tamara Richards, eds. Basic Legal Documents on International Animal Welfare and Wildlife Conservation. Boston, MA: Kluwer Law International, 2000. Baird, Robert M. and Stuart E. Rosenbaum, eds. Animal Experimentation: The Moral Issues. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1991. Baker, Steve. Picturing the Beast: Animals, Identity, and Representation. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 1993. Baldwin, Elizabeth. ‘The Case for Animal Research in Psychology,’ Journal of Social Issues 49: 121-131, 1993. Barad, Judith A. Aquinas on the Nature and Treatment of Animals. San Francisco, CA: International Scholars Publ., 1995. Barnard, Neil D. and Stephen R. Kaufman. ‘Animal Research is Wasteful and Misleading,’ Scientific American 276, No. 2: 80-82, 1997. Beers, Diane L. For the Prevention of Cruelty: The History and Legacy of Animal Rights Activism in the United States. Athens, OH: Swallow Press, 2006. Bekoff, Marc. Animal Passions and Beastly Virtues: Reflections on Redecorating Nature. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 2005. Bekoff, Marc (with Carron A. Meaney), ed. Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1998. Bekoff, Marc and John A. Byers, eds. Animal Play: Evolutionary, Comparative, and Ecological Perspectives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Bekoff, Marc, Colin Allen and Gordon M. Burghardt, eds. The Cognitive Animal: Empirical and Theoretical Perspectives on Animal Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002. Benson, G. John and Bernard E. Rollin, eds. The Well-Being of Farm Animals: Challenges and Solutions. Ames, IA: Blackwell, 2004. Benton, Ted. Natural Relations: Ecology, Animal Rights, and Social Justice. London: Verso, 1993. Benton, Ted and Simon Redfearn. ‘The Politics of Animal Rights—Where is the Left?’ New Left Review No. 215: 43-58, 1996. Bernstein, Mark H. Without a Tear: Our Tragic Relationship with Animals. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 2004. Best, Steven and Anthony J. Nocella, II. ‘Defining Terrorism,’ Animal Liberation Philosophy and Policy Journal II 1: 1-18, 2004. Available: http://www.cala-online.org/Journal_Articles_download/Issue_2/DefiningTerrorism.pdf Best, Steven and Richard Kahn. ‘Trial by Fire: The SHAC7, Globalization, and the Future of Democracy,’ Animal Liberation Philosophy and Policy Journal II 2: 1-36, 2004. Available: http://www.cala-online.org/Journal_Articles_download/Issue_3/Trial%20by%20Fire.pdf Birch, Charles, William Eakin and Jay B. McDaniel, eds. Liberating Life: Contemporary Approaches to Ecological Theology. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1990. Birke, Lynda. Feminism, Animals and Science: The Naming of the Shrew. Bristol, PA: Open University Press, 1994. Birnbacher, Dieter. ‘The Great Apes—Why They Have a Right to Life,’ Etica & Animali 8: 142-154, 1996. Blackman, D.E., P.N. Humphreys and P. Todd, eds. Animal Welfare and the Law. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Blum, Deborah. The Monkey Wars. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. Boonin-Vail, David. ‘The Vegetarian Savage: Rousseau’s Critique of Meat Eating,’ Environmental Ethics 15: 75-84, 1993. Boonin-Vail, David. ‘Contractarianism Gone Wild: Carruthers and the Moral Status of Animals,’ Environmental Ethics 15: 75-84, 1994. Bostock, Stephen St C. Zoos and Animal Rights: The Ethics of Keeping Animals. New York: Routledge, 1993. Botting, Jack H. and Adrian R. Morrison. ‘Animal Research is Vital to Medicine,’ Scientific American 276 No. 2: 83-85, 1997. Bowd, Alan D. and Kenneth J. Shapiro. ‘The Case against Laboratory Research in 2 Psychology,’ Journal of Social Issues 49: 133-142, 1993. Boxall, Susanna Flavia. ‘Beyond Orthodoxy: A Pluralist Approach to Animal Liberation,’ Animal Liberation Philosophy and Policy Journal II 4: 1-23, 2005. Available: http://www.cala-online.org/Journal_Articles_download/Issue_4/Beyond_Orthodoxy.pdf Brooman, Simon and Debbie Legge. Law Relating to Animals. London: Cavendish, 1997. Brown, Les. Cruelty to Animals: The Moral Debt. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1988. Bryant, Taimie L., ‘Trauma, Law, and Advocacy for Animals’ (September 8, 2004). UCLA School of Law Research Paper No. 04-13. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=593545 or DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.593545 Bryant, Taimie L., ‘Formal Equality or Anti-Discrimination: Must Animals be Like Humans to be Legally Protected from Humans?’ (August 2005). UCLA School of Law Research Paper No. 05-21 Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=796205 Budiansky, Stephen. If a Lion Could Talk: Animal Intelligence and the Evolution of Consciousness. New York: Free Press, 1998. Bull, William. ‘Rights and Duties under the Law of Nature,’ Ethic@: An International Journal for Moral Philosophy, Vol. 4, No. 1 (June 2005), pp. 39-53. Available at http://www.cfh.ufsc.br/ethic@/ET41ART3.pdf Bulliet, Richard W. Hunters, Herders, and Hamburgers: The Past and Future of Human-Animal Relationships. New York: Columbia University Press, 2005. Burgess-Jackson, Keith. ‘Doing Right by Our Animal Companions,’ The Journal of Ethics 2: 159-185, 1998. Caras, Roger A. A Perfect Harmony: The Intertwining Lives of Animals and Humans throughout History. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996. Carbone, Larry. What Animals Want: Expertise and Advocacy in Laboratory Animal Welfare Policy. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. Carmen, Ira H. Cloning and the Constitution: An Inquiry into Governmental Policymaking and Genetic Experimentation. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1986. Carruthers, Peter. The Animals Issue: Moral Theory in Practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Cartmill, Matt. A View to Death in the Morning: Hunting and Nature through History. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996. Causey, Ann S. ‘On the Morality of Hunting,’ Environmental Ethics 11: 327-343, 1989. Cavalieri, Paola. The Animal Question: Why Nonhuman Animals Deserve Human Rights. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Cavalieri, Paola and Peter Singer, eds. The Great Ape Project: Equality Beyond Humanity. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 1994. Cavalieri, Paola and Will Kymlicka. ‘Expanding the Social Contract,’ Etica & Animali 8: 5-33, 1996. Cebik, L.B. ‘Can Animals Have Rights? No and Yes,’ The Philosophical Forum 12: 251-268, 1981. Chapple, Christopher. Nonviolence to Animals, Earth and Self in Asian
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]
  • "Go Veg" Campaigns of US Animal Rights Organizations
    Society and Animals 18 (2010) 163-182 brill.nl/soan Framing Animal Rights in the “Go Veg” Campaigns of U.S. Animal Rights Organizations Carrie Packwood Freeman Georgia State University [email protected] Abstract How much do animal rights activists talk about animal rights when they attempt to persuade America’s meat-lovers to stop eating nonhuman animals? Th is study serves as the basis for a unique evaluation and categorization of problems and solutions as framed by fi ve major U.S. animal rights organizations in their vegan/food campaigns. Th e fi ndings reveal that the organiza- tions framed the problems as: cruelty and suff ering; commodifi cation; harm to humans and the environment; and needless killing. To solve problems largely blamed on factory farming, activists asked consumers to become “vegetarian” (meaning vegan) or to reduce animal product con- sumption, some requesting “humane” reforms. While certain messages supported animal rights, promoting veganism and respect for animals’ subject status, many frames used animal welfare ideology to achieve rights solutions, conservatively avoiding a direct challenge to the dominant human/animal dualism. In support of ideological authenticity, this paper recommends that vegan campaigns emphasize justice, respect, life, freedom, environmental responsibility, and a shared animality. Keywords animal rights, campaigns, farm animal, framing, ideology, vegan, vegetarian How much do or should animal rights activists talk about animal rights when they attempt to persuade America’s meat-lovers to stop eating animals? As participants in a counterhegemonic social movement, animal rights organiza- tions are faced with the discursive challenge of redefi ning accepted practices, such as farming and eating nonhuman animals, as socially unacceptable practices.
    [Show full text]
  • Animals Liberation Philosophy and Policy Journal Volume 5, Issue 2
    AAnniimmaallss LLiibbeerraattiioonn PPhhiilloossoopphhyy aanndd PPoolliiccyy JJoouurrnnaall VVoolluummee 55,, IIssssuuee 22 -- 22000077 Animal Liberation Philosophy and Policy Journal Volume 5, Issue 2 2007 Edited By: Steven Best, Chief Editor ____________________________________________________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS Lev Tolstoy and the Freedom to Choose One’s Own Path Andrea Rossing McDowell Pg. 2-28 Jewish Ethics and Nonhuman Animals Lisa Kemmerer Pg. 29-47 Deliberative Democracy, Direct Action, and Animal Advocacy Stephen D’Arcy Pg. 48-63 Should Anti-Vivisectionists Boycott Animal-Tested Medicines? Katherine Perlo Pg. 64-78 A Note on Pedagogy: Humane Education Making a Difference Piers Bierne and Meena Alagappan Pg. 79-94 BOOK REVIEWS _________________ Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal, by Eric Schlosser (2005) Reviewed by Lisa Kemmerer Pg. 95-101 Eternal Treblinka: Our Treatment of Animals and the Holocaust, by Charles Patterson (2002) Reviewed by Steven Best Pg. 102-118 The Longest Struggle: Animal Advocacy from Pythagoras to PETA, by Norm Phelps (2007) Reviewed by Steven Best Pg. 119-130 Journal for Critical Animal Studies, Volume V, Issue 2, 2007 Lev Tolstoy and the Freedom to Choose One’s Own Path Andrea Rossing McDowell, PhD It is difficult to be sat on all day, every day, by some other creature, without forming an opinion about them. On the other hand, it is perfectly possible to sit all day every day, on top of another creature and not have the slightest thought about them whatsoever. -- Douglas Adams, Dirk Gently’s Holistic Detective Agency (1988) Committed to the idea that the lives of humans and animals are inextricably linked, Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy (1828–1910) promoted—through literature, essays, and letters—the animal world as another venue in which to practice concern and kindness, consequently leading to more peaceful, consonant human relations.
    [Show full text]
  • 219 No Animal Food
    219 No Animal Food: The Road to Veganism in Britain, 1909-1944 Leah Leneman1 UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH There were individuals in the vegetarian movement in Britain who believed that to refrain from eating flesh, fowl, and fish while continuing to partake of dairy products and eggs was not going far enough. Between 1909 and 1912, The Vegetarian Society's journal published a vigorous correspond- ence on this subject. In 1910, a publisher brought out a cookery book entitled, No Animal Food. After World War I, the debate continued within the Vegetarian Society about the acceptability of animal by-products. It centered on issues of cruelty and health as well as on consistency versus expediency. The Society saw its function as one of persuading as many people as possible to give up slaughterhouse products and also refused journal space to those who abjured dairy products. The year 1944 saw the word "vergan" coined and the breakaway Vegan Society formed. The idea that eating animal flesh is unhealthy and morally wrong has been around for millennia, in many different parts of the world and in many cultures (Williams, 1896). In Britain, a national Vegetarian Society was formed in 1847 to promulgate the ideology of non-meat eating (Twigg, 1982). Vegetarianism, as defined by the Society-then and now-and by British vegetarians in general, permitted the consumption of dairy products and eggs on the grounds that it was not necessary to kill the animal to obtain them. In 1944, a group of Vegetarian Society members coined a new word-vegan-for those who refused to partake of any animal product and broke away to form a separate organization, The Vegan Society.
    [Show full text]
  • MAC1 Abstracts – Oral Presentations
    Oral Presentation Abstracts OP001 Rights, Interests and Moral Standing: a critical examination of dialogue between Regan and Frey. Rebekah Humphreys Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom This paper aims to assess R. G. Frey’s analysis of Leonard Nelson’s argument (that links interests to rights). Frey argues that claims that animals have rights or interests have not been established. Frey’s contentions that animals have not been shown to have rights nor interests will be discussed in turn, but the main focus will be on Frey’s claim that animals have not been shown to have interests. One way Frey analyses this latter claim is by considering H. J. McCloskey’s denial of the claim and Tom Regan’s criticism of this denial. While Frey’s position on animal interests does not depend on McCloskey’s views, he believes that a consideration of McCloskey’s views will reveal that Nelson’s argument (linking interests to rights) has not been established as sound. My discussion (of Frey’s scrutiny of Nelson’s argument) will centre only on the dialogue between Regan and Frey in respect of McCloskey’s argument. OP002 Can Special Relations Ground the Privileged Moral Status of Humans Over Animals? Robert Jones California State University, Chico, United States Much contemporary philosophical work regarding the moral considerability of nonhuman animals involves the search for some set of characteristics or properties that nonhuman animals possess sufficient for their robust membership in the sphere of things morally considerable. The most common strategy has been to identify some set of properties intrinsic to the animals themselves.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sexual Politics of Meat by Carol J. Adams
    THE SEXUAL POLITICS OF MEAT A FEMINISTVEGETARIAN CRITICAL THEORY Praise for The Sexual Politics of Meat and Carol J. Adams “A clearheaded scholar joins the ideas of two movements—vegetari- anism and feminism—and turns them into a single coherent and moral theory. Her argument is rational and persuasive. New ground—whole acres of it—is broken by Adams.” —Colman McCarthy, Washington Post Book World “Th e Sexual Politics of Meat examines the historical, gender, race, and class implications of meat culture, and makes the links between the prac tice of butchering/eating animals and the maintenance of male domi nance. Read this powerful new book and you may well become a vegetarian.” —Ms. “Adams’s work will almost surely become a ‘bible’ for feminist and pro gressive animal rights activists. Depiction of animal exploita- tion as one manifestation of a brutal patriarchal culture has been explored in two [of her] books, Th e Sexual Politics of Meat and Neither Man nor Beast: Feminism and the Defense of Animals. Adams argues that factory farming is part of a whole culture of oppression and insti- tutionalized violence. Th e treatment of animals as objects is parallel to and associated with patriarchal society’s objectifi cation of women, blacks, and other minorities in order to routinely exploit them. Adams excels in constructing unexpected juxtapositions by using the language of one kind of relationship to illuminate another. Employing poetic rather than rhetorical techniques, Adams makes powerful connec- tions that encourage readers to draw their own conclusions.” —Choice “A dynamic contribution toward creating a feminist/animal rights theory.” —Animals’ Agenda “A cohesive, passionate case linking meat-eating to the oppression of animals and women .
    [Show full text]
  • An Inquiry Into Animal Rights Vegan Activists' Perception and Practice of Persuasion
    An Inquiry into Animal Rights Vegan Activists’ Perception and Practice of Persuasion by Angela Gunther B.A., Simon Fraser University, 2006 Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in the School of Communication ! Angela Gunther 2012 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY Summer 2012 All rights reserved. However, in accordance with the Copyright Act of Canada, this work may be reproduced, without authorization, under the conditions for “Fair Dealing.” Therefore, limited reproduction of this work for the purposes of private study, research, criticism, review and news reporting is likely to be in accordance with the law, particularly if cited appropriately. Approval Name: Angela Gunther Degree: Master of Arts Title of Thesis: An Inquiry into Animal Rights Vegan Activists’ Perception and Practice of Persuasion Examining Committee: Chair: Kathi Cross Gary McCarron Senior Supervisor Associate Professor Robert Anderson Supervisor Professor Michael Kenny External Examiner Professor, Anthropology SFU Date Defended/Approved: June 28, 2012 ii Partial Copyright Licence iii Abstract This thesis interrogates the persuasive practices of Animal Rights Vegan Activists (ARVAs) in order to determine why and how ARVAs fail to convince people to become and stay veg*n, and what they might do to succeed. While ARVAs and ARVAism are the focus of this inquiry, the approaches, concepts and theories used are broadly applicable and therefore this investigation is potentially useful for any activist or group of activists wishing to interrogate and improve their persuasive practices. Keywords: Persuasion; Communication for Social Change; Animal Rights; Veg*nism; Activism iv Table of Contents Approval ............................................................................................................................. ii! Partial Copyright Licence .................................................................................................
    [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]
  • Animals Liberation Philosophy and Policy Journal Volume 5, Issue 1
    AAnniimmaallss LLiibbeerraattiioonn PPhhiilloossoopphhyy aanndd PPoolliiccyy JJoouurrnnaall VVoolluummee 55,, IIssssuuee 11 -- 22000077 Animal Liberation Philosophy and Policy Journal Volume 5, Issue 1 2007 Edited By: Steven Best, Chief Editor ____________________________________________________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Steven Best, Chief Editor Pg. 2-3 Introducing Critical Animal Studies Steven Best, Anthony J. Nocella II, Richard Kahn, Carol Gigliotti, and Lisa Kemmerer Pg. 4-5 Extrinsic and Intrinsic Arguments: Strategies for Promoting Animal Rights Katherine Perlo Pg. 6-19 Animal Rights Law: Fundamentalism versus Pragmatism David Sztybel Pg. 20-54 Unmasking the Animal Liberation Front Using Critical Pedagogy: Seeing the ALF for Who They Really Are Anthony J. Nocella II Pg. 55-64 The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act: New, Improved, and ACLU-Approved Steven Best Pg. 65-81 BOOK REVIEWS _________________ In Defense of Animals: The Second Wave, by Peter Singer ed. (2005) Reviewed by Matthew Calarco Pg. 82-87 Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy, by Matthew Scully (2003) Reviewed by Lisa Kemmerer Pg. 88-91 Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?: Reflections on the Liberation of Animals, by Steven Best and Anthony J. Nocella, II, eds. (2004) Reviewed by Lauren E. Eastwood Pg. 92 Introduction Welcome to the sixth issue of our journal. You’ll first notice that our journal and site has undergone a name change. The Center on Animal Liberation Affairs is now the Institute for Critical Animal Studies, and the Animal Liberation Philosophy and Policy Journal is now the Journal for Critical Animal Studies. The name changes, decided through discussion among our board members, were prompted by both philosophical and pragmatic motivations.
    [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]
  • The Ethical Consistency of Animal Equality
    1 The ethical consistency of animal equality Stijn Bruers, Sept 2013, DRAFT 2 Contents 0. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................ 5 0.1 SUMMARY: TOWARDS A COHERENT THEORY OF ANIMAL EQUALITY ........................................................................ 9 1. PART ONE: ETHICAL CONSISTENCY ......................................................................................................... 18 1.1 THE BASIC ELEMENTS ................................................................................................................................. 18 a) The input data: moral intuitions .......................................................................................................... 18 b) The method: rule universalism............................................................................................................. 20 1.2 THE GOAL: CONSISTENCY AND COHERENCE ..................................................................................................... 27 1.3 THE PROBLEM: MORAL ILLUSIONS ................................................................................................................ 30 a) Optical illusions .................................................................................................................................... 30 b) Moral illusions ....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Aus Politik Und Zeitgeschichte Mensch Und Tier
    APuZAus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 62. Jahrgang · 8–9/2012 · 20. Februar 2012 Mensch und Tier Hilal Sezgin Dürfen wir Tiere für unsere Zwecke nutzen? Thilo Spahl Das Bein in meiner Küche Carola Otterstedt Bedeutung des Tieres für unsere Gesellschaft Sonja Buschka · Julia Gutjahr · Marcel Sebastian Grundlagen und Perspektiven der Human-Animal Studies Peter Dinzelbacher Mensch und Tier in der europäischen Geschichte Mieke Roscher Tierschutz- und Tierrechtsbewegung – ein historischer Abriss Kathrin Voss Kampagnen der Tierrechtsorganisation PETA Wolf-Michael Catenhusen Tiere und Mensch-Tier-Mischwesen in der Forschung Editorial Vegetarismus ist „in“. Bücher wie „Tiere essen“ von Jonathan Safran Foer und „Anständig essen“ von Karen Duve stehen wo- chenlang in den Bestsellerlisten. Immer mehr Menschen ent- scheiden sich für eine fleischärmere oder fleischlose Ernährung; manche verzichten sogar auf alle tierischen Produkte und leben vegan. Die Motive sind vielfältig. Neben gesundheitlichen Er- wägungen oder Kritik an der Massentierhaltung – etwa an Kli- ma- und Umweltschäden, dem Leiden der Tiere, den Einbußen in der Qualität durch Zugabe von Antibiotika – stellt sich für viele die grundsätzliche Frage, ob wir Tiere für unsere Zwecke (und wenn ja, in welcher Weise) nutzen dürfen. Ein Blick in die Geschichte zeigt, dass Menschen sich schon immer Tiere zu nutzen gemacht haben – als Nahrungsquelle, für schwere Arbeiten in der Landwirtschaft, im Krieg und bei der Jagd, als Statussymbole und zum Vergnügen, für medizi- nische Versuche, als Haustiere. Die Tierschutz- und die Tier- rechtsbewegungen haben in den vergangenen Jahrzehnten für einen Bewusstseinswandel beim Umgang mit Tieren gesorgt. So wurde der Tierschutz als Verfassungsziel ins Grundgesetz auf- genommen und in der Schweiz sogar der Verfassungsgrundsatz der Tierwürde festgeschrieben.
    [Show full text]