DOCSLIB.ORG

Tom Regan and the Problem of Conflicting Rights Jeanine Campsall University of Texas at El Paso, [email protected]

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Tom Regan and the Problem of Conflicting Rights Jeanine Campsall University of Texas at El Paso, Jeaninec@Gmail.Com University of Texas at El Paso DigitalCommons@UTEP Open Access Theses & Dissertations 2011-01-01 Tom Regan and the Problem of Conflicting Rights Jeanine Campsall University of Texas at El Paso, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.utep.edu/open_etd Part of the Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Campsall, Jeanine, "Tom Regan and the Problem of Conflicting Rights" (2011). Open Access Theses & Dissertations. 2247. https://digitalcommons.utep.edu/open_etd/2247 This is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UTEP. It has been accepted for inclusion in Open Access Theses & Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UTEP. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TOM REGAN AND THE PROBLEM OF CONFLICTING RIGHTS JEANINE CAMPSALL Department of Philosophy APPROVED: John Symons, Ph.D., Chair Steve Best, Ph.D. Bruce Louden, Ph.D. Benjamin C. Flores, Ph.D. Acting Dean of the Graduate School Copyright © by Jeanine Campsall 2011 Dedication Dedicated in loving memory to my dog Molly. TOM REGAN AND THE PROBLEM OF CONFLICTING RIGHTS by JEANINE CAMPSALL, B.A., B.Sc. THESIS Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at El Paso in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Philosophy THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT EL PASO August 2011 Acknowledgements I would like to express my gratitude to all those who helped me through the process of writing this thesis. Foremost, to my thesis advisor John Symons, for all of the time and effort he has put forth on my behalf. I am extremely grateful for his knowledge, guidance and encouragement. I would also like to sincerely thank the other members of my thesis committee – Steve Best and Bruce Louden, for their thoughtful feedback and suggestions, as well as Peter Robinson for taking the time to read and comment on my thesis. I am also very grateful for the love and support of my family – both the Campsalls and the Shavers, and my friends and pets. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the huge influence that animals (pets and otherwise) have had on my interest in moral philosophy and my writing on this topic. v Table of Contents Dedication ...................................................................................................................................... iii Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... v Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1: Introduction to The Case for Animal Rights ................................................................. 6 1.1 Mental Lives Of Animals.............................................................................................. 6 1.2 Welfare of Animals .......................................................................................................... 7 1.3.1 Inherent Value ............................................................................................................ 11 1.3.2 Inherent Value Criticism ............................................................................................ 14 1.3.3 Ultimate Value ........................................................................................................... 16 1.3.4 Line-Drawing Criticism ............................................................................................ 20 Chapter 2: Basic Rights and Duties .............................................................................................. 25 2.1 Rights Background......................................................................................................... 25 2.2 Basic Rights as Valid Claims ........................................................................................ 29 2.3.1 Duties of Assistance ................................................................................................... 32 2.3.2 Duties of Assistance Criticism ................................................................................... 33 2.4 Implications of the Animal Rights View ...................................................................... 36 Chapter 3: Conflicts of Rights ...................................................................................................... 40 3.1 Conflicts of Rights Introduction ................................................................................... 40 3.2 Some Problems of Moderate Deontological Views: ..................................................... 40 3.3 Introduction to Regan's Principles for Overriding Rights ............................................. 46 3.4.1 The Miniride Principle ....................................................................................... 48 3.4.2 Criticisms of the Miniride Principle ......................................................................... 48 3.5.1 The Worse-Off Principle ............................................................................................ 56 3.5.2 Criticisms of the Worse-off Principle ........................................................................ 57 3.6.1 Side-Effects and Special Considerations ................................................................... 59 3.6.2 Special Considerations Criticisms ............................................................................. 61 Chapter 4: The Lifeboat Problem ................................................................................................. 64 4.1 Introduction to the Lifeboat Case ................................................................................. 64 4.3.1 The Harm of Death Criticism .................................................................................... 69 vi 4.3.2 Why We Should Reject Regan's Solution to the Lifeboat Case ................................. 75 4.4.1 Introduction to the Moral Dilemmas Debate .............................................................. 78 4.5.1 Brink's Characterization of Prima Facie and All-Things-Considered Obligations ..... 88 4.5.2 Brink's Recipe for Dilemmas ...................................................................................... 89 4.6 More Arguments against the Possibility of Dilemmas .................................................. 91 4.7 Solution to the Moral Dilemmas Problem .................................................................... 94 4.8 Alternative Solution to the Lifeboat Problem .............................................................. 99 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 102 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................... 108 Curriculum Vita .......................................................................................................................... 111 vii Introduction In The Case for Animal Rights, first published in 1983, Tom Regan offers a deontological approach to dealing with the problem of the moral status of animals. This is in contrast to Peter Singer's famous utilitarian account in his book Animal Liberation from 1975. While Singer's is the most well- known utilitarian account of animal liberation, Regan's position is the most the most well-known rights- based account. Regan claims that the morally significant characteristic uniting humans with many non- human animals is that they are “subjects-of-a-life” with inherent value.1 All individuals with inherent value, Regan argues, have a right not be treated as mere means; they have basic rights that ought to be respected by moral agents.2 Simply establishing the basic rights of individuals does not provide us with adequate information to know our moral obligations in every situation. Some moral situations do not involve rights –this implies that a complete moral theory cannot be entirely rights based, and that we have duties aside from those associated with rights. Simply referring to rights also does not help in situations when rights conflict. An important task for theories involving moral rights thus involves determining whether it would ever be acceptable to override rights, and if so, in which situations, and according to which principles. Regan's theory has been criticized for various reasons, and one aspect that has been extensively debated is his analysis of cases where rights may be overridden. The role rights play in moral theories relates directly to the way that rights conflicts are resolved. There are those who argue that if rights are to play any meaningful role, they must be thought to be absolute; however, this view runs into practical problems as it does not further our ability to resolve conflicts between rights. Rights function as a way to provide protection for individuals, but many agree that an individual's right may be overridden in certain circumstances: when other rights, or other non- 1 Tom Regan, The Case for Animal Rights (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2004), 264. 2 Ibid., 327. 1 rights considerations conflict with it. When rights are not in conflict, moral decisions are simple – the morally obligatory action is to respect rights. Ideally, we would never have to override a right and it would be possible for all rights to be absolute, but since
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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 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]
  • 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]
  • Against Animal Liberation? Peter Singer and His Critics
    Against Animal Liberation? Peter Singer and His Critics Gonzalo Villanueva Sophia International Journal of Philosophy and Traditions ISSN 0038-1527 SOPHIA DOI 10.1007/s11841-017-0597-6 1 23 Your article is protected by copyright and all rights are held exclusively by Springer Science +Business Media Dordrecht. This e-offprint is for personal use only and shall not be self- archived in electronic repositories. If you wish to self-archive your article, please use the accepted manuscript version for posting on your own website. You may further deposit the accepted manuscript version in any repository, provided it is only made publicly available 12 months after official publication or later and provided acknowledgement is given to the original source of publication and a link is inserted to the published article on Springer's website. The link must be accompanied by the following text: "The final publication is available at link.springer.com”. 1 23 Author's personal copy SOPHIA DOI 10.1007/s11841-017-0597-6 Against Animal Liberation? Peter Singer and His Critics Gonzalo Villanueva1 # Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017 Keywords Animal ethics . Moral status of animals . Peter Singer. Animal liberation Peter Singer’s 1975 book Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals has been described as ‘the Bible’ of the modern animal movement.1 Singer’s unrhetorical and unemotional arguments radically departed from previous conceptions of animal ethics. He moved beyond the animal welfare tradition of ‘kindness’ and ‘compassion’ to articulate a non-anthropocentric utilitarian philosophy based on equal- ity and interests. After the publication of Animal Liberation, an ‘avalanche of animal rights literature’ appeared.2 A prolific amount of work focused on the moral status of animals, and the ‘animal question’ has been given serious consideration across a broad range of disciplines.
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Rights Movement
    Animal Rights Movement The Animal Protection Movement. Prevention of cruelty to animals became an important movement in early 19th Century England, where it grew alongside the humanitarian current that advanced human rights, including the anti-slavery movement and later the movement for woman suffrage. The first anti-cruelty bill, intended to stop bull-baiting, was introduced in Parliament in 1800. In 1822 Colonel Richard Martin succeeded in passing an act in the House of Commons preventing cruelty to such larger domestic animals as horses and cattle; two years later he organized the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) to help enforce the law. Queen Victoria commanded the addition of the prefix "Royal" to the Society in 1840. Following the British model, Henry Bergh organized the American SPCA in New York in 1866 after returning from his post in St. Petersburg as secretary to the American legation in Russia; he hoped it would become national in scope, but the ASPCA remained primarily an animal shelter program for New York City. Other SPCAs and Humane Societies were founded in the U.S. beginning in the late 1860s (often with support from abolitionists) with groups in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and San Francisco among the first. Originally concerned with enforcing anti-cruelty laws, they soon began running animal shelters along the lines of a model developed in Philadelphia. The American Humane Association (AHA), with divisions for children and animals, was founded in 1877, and emerged as the leading national advocate for animal protection and child protection services. As the scientific approach to medicine expanded, opposition grew to the use of animals in medical laboratory research -- particularly in the era before anesthetics and pain-killers became widely available.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethics and Animals Fall 2020
    Ethics and Animals Fall 2020 Description This course examines the morality of our treatment of nonhuman animals. We start with a survey of moral theory. Do animals have moral status? Do we have a right to harm or kill some animals in order to benefit or save others? We consider these questions from a variety of moral perspectives, including consequentialism, Kantian ethics, virtue ethics, and feminist ethics. We then apply these ideas to different kinds of animal use. For example, what is the morality of our treatment of animals in food, research, captivity, and the wild? Finally, we will explore ethical questions that arise for animal activists, including about what ends they should pursue, what means they should take towards those ends, and how they should relate to other social movements. General Information Time: T 5:00{7:30 ET Place: online Instructor: Name: Jeff Sebo Email: jeff[email protected] Office: online Office Hours: M 3-5pm ET 1 Readings The required books for this class are: Julia Driver, Ethics: The Fundamentals; Lori Gruen, Ethics and Animals; and Gary Francione & Robert Garner, The Animal Rights Debate. These books are available online, and the Gruen and Francione & Garner books are also available for free at the NYU library website. All readings not from the required books will be posted on the course website. Grading Your grades will be determined as follows: • Papers (75%): You will write three papers explaining and evaluating the ideas and arguments discussed in class. You will email this paper to [email protected]. For each paper, you can either create your own prompt (provided that you clear it with us in advance) or select from prompts that we create.
    [Show full text]
  • Tom Regan on Innocents L
    BETWEEN THE SPECIES Issue VII August 2007 www.cla.calpoly.edu/bts/ TOM REGAN ON INNOCENTS L. A. Kemmerer In The Case for Animal Rights (NY: Routledge, 1984), Tom Regan explains his philosophical defense of animal rights, commonly termed “The Rights View.” The implications of his treatment of “innocent threats” and “loss of innocence” require closer scrutiny than previous scholars authors provided. Regan defines “innocent threats” as dangerous moral patients (293); he defines moral patients as inherently innocent (294). He asserts, “Those who forge, as well as those who perpetuate injustice are not on the same moral footing as their innocent victims” (323). Morality requires us to take into consideration “past injustices some have had to bear” (323). “Those who are parties to such injustice lose the protection of the miniride and worse-off principles provide and have no just grounds to complain if we overfide their right not to be harmed and spare the victims of their past injustice” (323). This assertion has counter-intuitive implications. The “miniride principle” (from “minimize overriding principle”) asserts that the rights of the few may be overridden for the rights of the many, all things being equal. For instance, if one miner is trapped in a shaft and will be killed if explosives are used to free fifty other miners (who are also trapped), the one ought to be killed if necessary to save the other fifty. Morality requires that we override a minimum of rights (Case 307); it is preferable to override only one individual’s right not to be harmed than to override the same right for fifty.
    [Show full text]
  • December 9Th 1987
    California State University, San Bernardino CSUSB ScholarWorks Coyote Chronicle (1984-) Arthur E. Nelson University Archives 12-9-1987 December 9th 1987 CSUSB Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/coyote-chronicle Recommended Citation CSUSB, "December 9th 1987" (1987). Coyote Chronicle (1984-). 246. https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/coyote-chronicle/246 This Newspaper is brought to you for free and open access by the Arthur E. Nelson University Archives at CSUSB ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Coyote Chronicle (1984-) by an authorized administrator of CSUSB ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CAUFCRiViA STATE U^iiVERSlTY The '.ardino DEC 9 - 198/ Chronicle LsSRARY Volume 22, Number 10 Col State University, Son Bernordino December 9, 1987 Parking Lot Dilemma: Faculty vs. Handicapped by Patrice Bolding Mitchell. Wklkihg," Which she resource. We try to split it as close does with a cane, or pushing as possible." herself in her wheelchair to her On Thursday afternoon, nine of Tarking here is a crunch for classes in the Biology, and Physical the ten handicapped spaces were everybody," says Susan Mitchell, Science building and library are occupied. Of the over 200 faculty backing out of her parking space. exhausting maneuvers from the parking spaces, 86 were open. For everyone except the Commons parking lot. Which is The following morning at 10:30 handicapped, it appeared. why she has always parked in the a.m., the situation was the same. Surrounding us were eight empty faculty/handicapped parking lot But the situation is being spaces out of the ten allotted behind the Biology building-until remedied, assures Butler.
    [Show full text]
  • Journal of Animal Law 2005.01.Pdf
    VOL. I 2005 JOURNAL OF ANIMAL LAW Michigan State University College of Law J O U R N A L O F A N I M A L L A W VOL. I 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION The Gathering Momentum…………………………………………………………………. 1 David Favre ARTICLES & ESSAYS Non-Economic Damages: Where does it get us and how do we get there? ……………….. 7 Sonia Waisman A new movement in tort law seeks to provide money damages to persons losing a companion animal. These non-compensatory damages are highly controversial, and spark a debate as to whether such awards are the best thing for the animals—or for the lawyers. Would a change in the property status of companion animals better solve this important and emotional legal question? Invented Cages: The Plight of Wild Animals in Captivity ………………………………... 23 Anuj Shah & Alyce Miller The rate of private possession of wild animals in the United States has escalated in recent years. Laws at the federal, state, and local levels remain woefully inadequate to the task of addressing the treatment and welfare of the animals themselves and many animals “slip through the cracks,” resulting in abuse, neglect, and often death. This article explores numerous facets of problems inherent in the private possession of exotic animals. The Recent Development of Portugese Law in the Field of Animal Rights ………………. 61 Professor Fernando Arajúo Portugal has had a long and bloody tradition of violence against animals, not the least of which includes Spanish-style bullfighting that has shown itself to be quite resistant to legal, cultural, and social reforms that would respect the right of animals to be free from suffering.
    [Show full text]
  • Freshman Seminar – Animal Studies HORR 108; Mon and Weds 12:00-1:15 Prerequisites: None
    Bellarmine University SPRING - 2008 IDC 101-EF Freshman Seminar – Animal Studies HORR 108; Mon and Weds 12:00-1:15 Prerequisites: None Instructor: Tami Harbolt-Bosco, PhD E-mail Address: [email protected]; [email protected] Office Location: Appointments only Office Phone: 574-5556 Cell Phone: 432-4366 Office Hours: Mondays 10:30 – 11:30 or by appointment. You must email me to meet with me. Required Texts: Armstrong, Susan J and Richard g. Botzler (editors). The Animal Ethics Reader. London: Routledge, 2005. Optional research text (available on reserve in the library or on Alibris.com) Finsen, Lawrence and Susan Finsen. The Animal Rights Movement in America: From Compassion to Respect. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1994. Ritvo, Harriet. The Animal Estate: Reading reserve packet also available in the library All students are required to own and use a copy of the The Longman Writer’s Companion (Bellarmine University Edition)by Chris M. Anson, Robert A. Schwegler, and Marcia F. Muth Disclaimer: The instructor reserves the right to make reasonable changes to the syllabus in response to the needs of the class. These changes will be made with every effort to inform all members of class either in class or through electronic notification. If students are unable to access email or attend class and are unaware of changes in the syllabus, they must contact the instructor in person or by telephone. University Mission Statement: Bellarmine University is an independent Catholic university serving the region, nation and world by educating talented, diverse students of many faiths, ages, nations, and cultures, and with respect for each individual’s intrinsic value and dignity.
    [Show full text]