DOCSLIB.ORG

Morality and Mindreading in Nonhuman Animals

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Morality and Mindreading in Nonhuman Animals TESIS DOCTORAL 2016 MORALITY AND MINDREADING IN NONHUMAN ANIMALS SUSANA MONSÓ GIL LICENCIADA EN FILOSOFÍA PROGRAMA DE DOCTORADO EN FILOSOFÍA DIRECTOR: DR. JESÚS ZAMORA BONILLA (UNED) CODIRECTOR: DR. MARK ROWLANDS (UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI) TESIS DOCTORAL 2016 MORALITY AND MINDREADING IN NONHUMAN ANIMALS SUSANA MONSÓ GIL LICENCIADA EN FILOSOFÍA PROGRAMA DE DOCTORADO EN FILOSOFÍA DIRECTOR: DR. JESÚS ZAMORA BONILLA (UNED) CODIRECTOR: DR. MARK ROWLANDS (UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI) 2 Para Mavi y Cote. 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis is the result of four years of hard work, during which I have received help from a great number of individuals. There are three people in particular, however, without whom this dissertation would not have existed as such, and I must begin by thanking them. My first big thank you goes to my advisor, Jesús Zamora, who gave me the opportunity to be a part of his team at UNED and the freedom to pursue this somewhat unorthodox research topic. I am very grateful for his support, his trust in me, and his perpetual good humour. My second big thank you goes to David Teira, Head of the Department of Logic, History, and Philosophy of Science at UNED, who gave me all the strategic and bureaucratic advice that I needed, pushed me to be more ambitious from the very first day, and took great care of me even though I was never his direct responsibility. My last big (immense, gigantic) thank you goes to my external co-advisor, Mark Rowlands, who took on the task of supervising my work out of pure altruism. It’s hard to imagine how I could have made it without his thoughtful guidance, his many words of encouragement, and his sincere belief in my project. I have shared my time at the Department of Logic, History, and Philosophy of Science at UNED with several brilliant graduate students, who have not only become good friends, but also taught me a great deal at our many seminars, reading groups, and informal discussions: Agata Bąk, Álex Díaz, José Ángel Gascón, Javier González de Prado, and Marco Antonio Joven. Most of them have additionally read parts of this dissertation and given me feedback that infallibly helped improve my work. Over the course of my PhD studies I have been fortunate to enjoy two stays abroad. I first spent three months at the University of Miami, as a result of a short-stay research grant from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness. I would like to thank Mark Rowlands for his help with this, and his willingness to work side by side with me during my time there. Thanks, as well, to Eugene Rosov, Alice Lowe, Sagid Salles, Damien Dupasquier, Shan Haq, and the rest—my adoptive family—, all of whom made me feel at home. I’m also 4 grateful to the dogs—Chico, Licker, Hennessy, and Unique—who were so much fun to live with and taught me several important lessons on animal morality. During my final year, I also had the chance to spend three weeks in Vienna, as part of a lectureship contract at the Messerli Research Institute. This was an exhilarating and inspiring experience, not only because I learnt so much from teaching my students there, but also because I got the chance to meet and discuss my work with several scholars who have research interests close to mine. I would like to thank Judith Benz-Schwarzburg and Herwig Grimm for this opportunity, as well as Eva Schwarzinger for helping me out with all the necessary paperwork. During these last four years, I have also attended many conferences, workshops, and seminars where I have sometimes come across inspiration for my own work. These include the many invited talks organised by the Department of Logic, History, and Philosophy of Science at UNED, the ‘Pain in Animals’ conference held at the University of Glasgow in 2013, the 2014 ISAZ meeting at the University of Vienna, and a talk by Françoise Wemelsfelder at the Messerli Research Institute. I have also presented my own work at various venues, where I’ve always received interesting—sometimes crucial—feedback: the ‘What is cognition?’ workshop at the Ruhr-University of Bochum, the 2013 graduate conferences organised by the SEFA and the SIFA, the 3rd Graduate Seminar on Philosophical Research organised by UNED, the 4th Research Workshop on the Philosophy of Biology and Cognitive Science held at the University of Granada, the ‘De-intellectualizing the mind’ workshop at UNED, the philosophy of mind workshop at the Department of Philosophy of the University of Miami, and the 17th edition of the Taller d’Investigació en Filosofia held at the Autonomous University of Barcelona. I’m especially grateful for having had the opportunity to present at this last meeting, since the criticism that I received from my commentator, Claudia Compte, as well as from some of the attendants, made me reconsider many aspects of my work and, in the end, served to greatly strengthen my dissertation. This thesis has further benefited from feedback from various anonymous reviewers for the journals Argumenta, Biology & Philosophy, Philosophical Psychology, and Mind & 5 Language. Several of the arguments I present in this dissertation have also been shaped, in one way or another, by the many conversations that I’ve had with philosophers and other scholars during these last few years. Special mention is due to Collin Allen, Kristin Andrews, Judith Benz-Schwarzburg, Samuel Camenzind, José Ángel Gascón, Javier González de Prado, Herwig Grimm, Annika Huber, Richard Moore, and Laura Nuño de la Rosa, all of whom provided me with key tips. Thanks, as well, to Mauricio Suárez, for his part played in convincing me to pursue a PhD. And thanks to Cristian Saborido, for constantly reminding me that I was doing fine. These acknowledgements would not be complete without a mention to my family and friends. I’m lucky enough to have two parents who have unwaveringly supported my choice of career, and made countless sacrifices to ensure I could be whomever I wanted to be. For that, I am immensely grateful. To the rest of my family and friends—they know who they are—, thanks for providing a refuge away from my thesis, and for never doubting that I would make it. Special thanks to Julia Schell and Pablo ‘Susu’ Suárez, who have understood my academic struggles better than anyone else, and continued to inspire me with their multiple talents and energetic attitude towards life. My final—and most important—word of thanks goes to my two life companions, who have shared this journey with me and never failed to lift me up when I was falling. My dog, Tote, was the one who sparked my interest in the animal mind, and I’m grateful for all he has taught me ever since—not least that you don’t need much intelligence to love and care for others. But my deepest gratitude goes to my partner, Javi, who has been incredibly patient and supportive throughout the many emotional peaks and valleys that come with writing a thesis. Thanks for understanding and, above all, for making me laugh every day. 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS Resumen ....................................................................................................................................... 9 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 10 1.1. The question and why it matters .................................................................................... 10 1.2. Theoretical framework .................................................................................................. 13 1.3. Structure of the dissertation .......................................................................................... 16 2. Moral Animals? ..................................................................................................................... 19 2.1. The evidence ..................................................................................................................... 20 2.1.1. Experimental evidence .............................................................................................. 21 2.1.1.1. The cooperation cluster ..................................................................................................... 21 2.1.1.2. The fairness cluster ............................................................................................................ 23 2.1.1.3. The altruism cluster ........................................................................................................... 26 2.1.2. Observational evidence ............................................................................................. 31 2.1.2.1. The cooperation cluster ..................................................................................................... 32 2.1.2.2. The fairness cluster ............................................................................................................ 34 2.1.2.3. The altruism cluster ........................................................................................................... 35 2.1.3. Anecdotal evidence ................................................................................................... 37 2.1.3.1. Grade 1 anecdotal evidence ............................................................................................... 38 2.1.3.2. Grade 2 anecdotal evidence ............................................................................................... 42 2.2. The theoretical case against animal morality .................................................................. 45 2.2.1. A common (and problematic) argument
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Guest of the Issue
    122 Guest of the Issue AVANT Volume III, Number 1/2012 www.avant.edu.pl/en 123 Mark Rowlands AVANT editors and co-workers had a chance to meet Mark Rowlands in Toruń, Poland a year ago in 2011. He gave two talks at Philosophers’ Rally , the first one on “Intentionality and the Extended Mind” (involving the discus- sion of his latest book The New Science of The Mind: From Extended Mind to Embodied Phenomenology, 2010) and the second – less formal, on his The Philosopher and the Wolf (2008) me- moirs. Professor Rowlands is certainly a man of many (philosophical) interests. His works may be divided into three cate- gories: the philosophy of the mind and cognitive science (starting from Super- venience and Materialism (1995) and The Nature Of Consciousness (2001), followed by the 2006 and 2010 books already mentioned), ethics, the moral status of non- human animals and problems of natural environment (Animal Rights (1998), The Environmental Crisis (2000) and Animals Like Us (2002)), and broadly construed cultural criticism and philosophy 101-style books (The Philosopher at the End of the Universe (2003), Everything I Know I Learned from TV (2005) and Fame (2008)). Rowland’s article Representing without Representations published in this issue is related to his earlier book, Body Language (2006). Mark Rowlands is currently the Professor of Philosophy at the University of Miami. He began his academic career with an undergraduate degree in engineering at the University of Manchester and then switched to philosophy. He was awarded his PhD in philosophy at the University of Oxford.
    [Show full text]
  • 4​Th​ MINDING ANIMALS CONFERENCE CIUDAD DE
    th 4 ​ MINDING ANIMALS CONFERENCE ​ CIUDAD DE MÉXICO, 17 TO 24 JANUARY, 2018 SOCIAL PROGRAMME: ROYAL PEDREGAL HOTEL ACADEMIC PROGRAMME: NATIONAL AUTONOMOUS UNIVERSITY OF MEXICO Auditorio Alfonso Caso and Anexos de la Facultad de Derecho FINAL PROGRAMME (Online version linked to abstracts. Download PDF here) 1/47 All delegates please note: ​ 1. Presentation slots may have needed to be moved by the organisers, and may appear in a different place from that of the final printed programme. Please consult the schedule located in the Conference Programme upon arrival at the Conference for your presentation time. 2. Please note that presenters have to ensure the following times for presentation to allow for adequate time for questions from the floor and smooth transition of sessions. Delegates must not stray from their allocated 20 minutes. Further, delegates are welcome to move within sessions, therefore presenters MUST limit their talk to the allocated time. Therefore, Q&A will be AFTER each talk, and NOT at the end of the three presentations. Plenary and Invited Talks – 45 min. presentation and 15 min. discussion (Q&A). 3. For panels, each panellist must stick strictly to a 10 minute time frame, before discussion with the floor commences. 4. Note that co-authors may be presenting at the conference in place of, or with the main author. For all co-authors, delegates are advised to consult the Conference Abstracts link on the Minding Animals website. Use of the term et al is provided where there is more than two authors ​ ​ of an abstract. 5. Moderator notes will be available at all front desks in tutorial rooms, along with Time Sheets (5, 3 and 1 minute Left).
    [Show full text]
  • Animals & Ethics
    v ABOUT THIS BOOK This book provides an overview of the current debates about the nature and extent of our moral obligations to animals. Which, if any, uses of animals are morally wrong, which are morally permissible (i.e., not wrong) and why? What, if any, moral obligations do we, individually and as a society (and a global community), have towards animals and why? How should animals be treated? Why? We will explore the most influential and most developed answers to these questions – given by philosophers, scientists, and animal advocates and their critics – to try to determine which positions are supported by the best moral reasons. Topics include: x general theories of ethics and their implications for animals, x moral argument analysis, x general theories of our moral relations to animals, x animal minds, and x the uses of animals for food, clothing, experimentation, entertainment, hunting, as companions or pets, and other purposes. The book offers discussion questions and paper assignments to encourage readers to develop positions on theoretical and practice issues concerning ethics and animals, give reasons for their support, and respond to possible objections and criticisms. This book is organized around an initial presentation of three of the most influential methods of moral thinking for human to human interactions. We then see how these ethical theories have been extended to apply to human to animal interactions, i.e., how humans ought to treat non-human animals. These perspectives are: x a demand for equality or equal moral consideration of interests (developed by Peter Singer); vi x a demand for respect of the moral right to respectful treatment (developed by Tom Regan); and x a demand that moral decisions be made fairly and impartially and the use of a novel thought experiment designed to ensure this (developed by Mark Rowlands, following John Rawls).
    [Show full text]
  • Illuminating the Past
    Published by PhotoBook Press 2836 Lyndale Ave. S. Minneapolis, MN 55408 Designed at the School of Information and Library Science University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 216 Lenoir Drive CB#3360, 100 Manning Hall Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3360 The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is committed to equality of educational opportunity. The University does not discriminate in o fering access to its educational programs and activities on the basis of age, gender, race, color, national origin, religion, creed, disability, veteran’s status or sexual orientation. The Dean of Students (01 Steele Building, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-5100 or 919.966.4042) has been designated to handle inquiries regarding the University’s non-discrimination policies. © 2007 Illuminating the Past A history of the first 75 years of the University of North Carolina’s School of Information and Library Science Illuminating the past, imagining the future! Dear Friends, Welcome to this beautiful memory book for the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Information and Library Science (SILS). As part of our commemoration of the 75th anniversary of the founding of the School, the words and photographs in these pages will give you engaging views of the rich history we share. These are memories that do indeed illuminate our past and chal- lenge us to imagine a vital and innovative future. In the 1930’s when SILS began, the United States had fallen from being the land of opportunity to a country focused on eco- nomic survival. The income of the average American family had fallen by 40%, unemployment was at 25% and it was a perilous time for public education, with most communities struggling to afford teachers and textbooks for their children.
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Rights and Self-Defense Theory
    The Journal of Value Inquiry (2009) 43:165–177 Ó Springer 2009 DOI 10.1007/s10790-009-9149-9 Animal Rights and Self-Defense Theory JOHN HADLEY School of Communication, Centre for Applied Philosophy & Public Ethics (CAPPE), Charles Sturt University, N5 Cunningham House, Panorama Avenue, Bathurst, NSW 2795, Australia; e-mail: [email protected] Through his recent discussion of rights-based approaches to the morality of abortion, Jeff McMahan sheds light on the implications for extending self-defense theory to nonpersons that are afforded full moral status.1 McMahanÕs principal target is Judith Thompson who argues that a woman has a right to procure an abortion on the grounds of self-defense, even if the fetus is afforded maximum moral status.2 Central to ThompsonÕs argument is her claim that people should not be obliged to help others at great cost to themselves. She says: ‘‘[N]obody is morally required to make large sacrifices, of health, of all other interests and concerns, of all other duties and commitments, for nine years, or even for nine months, in order to keep another person alive.’’3 According to Thompson, while it is reasonable to expect people to provide so-called minimal aid and assistance to individuals in need, it is asking too much of women to demand they carry an unwanted pregnancy to term given the significant personal costs involved. While broadly sympathetic to her pro-abortion position, McMahan believes that Thompson fails to notice a decisive implication of her thoroughly rights-based theory. His focus is not her key claim that the duty to assist others only goes so far but her treating a fetus as a person with full moral rights.
    [Show full text]
  • Bob Fischer's CV
    BOB FISCHER [email protected] Department of Philosophy bobfischer.net Texas State University orcid.org/0000-0001-9605-393X 601 University Drive 512.245.2403 San Marcos, TX 78666 EMPLOYMENT Texas State University: Associate Professor of Philosophy 2019-present Texas State University: Assistant Professor of Philosophy 2013-2019 Texas State University: Senior Lecturer 2011-2013 EDUCATION University of Illinois at Chicago, Ph.D., Philosophy 2006-2011 Dissertation: Modal Knowledge, in Theory Director: W. D. Hart State University of New York at Geneseo, B.A., English & Philosophy 2001-2004 PUBLICATIONS BOOKS AUTHORED What Do We Owe Other Animals? Under contract with Routledge. (w/ Anja Jauernig) Wildlife Ethics: Animal Ethics in Wildlife Management and Conservation. Under contract with Blackwell. (w/ Christian Gamborg, Jordan Hampton, Clare Palmer, and Peter Sandøe) Animal Ethics — A Contemporary Introduction. New York: Routledge, 2021. The Ethics of Eating Animals: Usually Bad, Sometimes Wrong, Often Permissible. New York: Routledge, 2020. Modal Justification via Theories. Synthese Library. Cham: Springer, 2017. BOOKS EDITED A 21st Century Ethical Toolbox, 5th Edition. Under contract with Oxford University Press. (w/ Anthony Weston) Ethics, Left and Right: The Moral Issues That Divide Us. New York: Oxford University Press, 2020. College Ethics: A Reader on Moral Issues That Affect You, 2nd Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2020. (1st Edition: 2017) The Routledge Handbook of Animal Ethics. New York: Routledge, 2020. Modal Epistemology After Rationalism. Synthese Library. Cham: Springer, 2017. (w/ Felipe Leon) The Moral Complexities of Eating Meat. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015. (w/ Ben Bramble) ARTICLES & BOOK CHAPTERS “Animal Agriculture, Wet Markets, and COVID-19: A Case Study in Indirect Activism.” Food Ethics, forthcoming.
    [Show full text]
  • Summer Academy Animal Law 2021 Conference Handbook
    Summer Academy Animal Law 2021 Conference Handbook 19/20 June 2021 Live Zoom event Summer Academy Animal Law 2021 We are thankful to taOtfefniwciuanld serp oisnt sdoerr Oofff itzhieelle sponSsuomr dmere sro mAmcaerdaekmadyemie 2021Animal Law 2021 The mission of Animal Interfaith Alliance is to create a united voice for animals from all the major faiths to bring about a world where they are treated with respect and compassion. AIA has the following objectives: 1.To provide a stronger voice for animals through the interfaith group than can be provided by many separate voices from individual faiths; 2.To create a co-ordinated approach across the faiths to educate people on the humane treatment of animals; 3.To create a strong and co-ordinated campaigning organisation; 4.To provide a forum to learn from and share the wisdoms of other cultures and traditions; 5.To disseminate that wisdom through literature, including a regular newsletter, books and orders of service, and through the internet, including a website and social media, which can also be used as a campaign tool; 6.To inspire others through interfaith conferences and services with a major event celebrating World Animal Day on 4th October; 7.To promote a vegetarian/vegan diet, which also embraces the issues of environmental protection, healthy lifestyles and ending world hunger, and to end animal exploitation. www.animal-interfaith-alliance.com Table of contents Foreword 6 Message of Greeting 8 Program 9 Time Zone Conversation Table 11 The Summer Academy 2021 13 Joining the Summer Academy via Zoom 14 Panel Discussion 15 The Summer Academy Team 16 Annex: Preparatory reading list 17 Foreword Humans kill billions of animals every year.
    [Show full text]
  • Chimpanzee Rights: the Philosophers' Brief
    Chimpanzee Rights: The Philosophers’ Brief By Kristin Andrews Gary Comstock G.K.D. Crozier Sue Donaldson Andrew Fenton Tyler M. John L. Syd M Johnson Robert C. Jones Will Kymlicka Letitia Meynell Nathan Nobis David M. Peña-Guzmán Jeff Sebo 1 For Kiko and Tommy 2 Contents Acknowledgments…4 Preface Chapter 1 Introduction: Chimpanzees, Rights, and Conceptions of Personhood….5 Chapter 2 The Species Membership Conception………17 Chapter 3 The Social Contract Conception……….48 Chapter 4 The Community Membership Conception……….69 Chapter 5 The Capacities Conception……….85 Chapter 6 Conclusions……….115 Index 3 Acknowledgements The authors thank the many people who have helped us throughout the development of this book. James Rocha, Bernard Rollin, Adam Shriver, and Rebecca Walker were fellow travelers with us on the amicus brief, but were unable to follow us to the book. Research assistants Andrew Lopez and Caroline Vardigans provided invaluable support and assistance at crucial moments. We have also benefited from discussion with audiences at the Stanford Law School and Dalhousie Philosophy Department Colloquium, where the amicus brief was presented, and from the advice of wise colleagues, including Charlotte Blattner, Matthew Herder, Syl Ko, Tim Krahn, and Gordon McOuat. Lauren Choplin, Kevin Schneider, and Steven Wise patiently helped us navigate the legal landscape as we worked on the brief, related media articles, and the book, and they continue to fight for freedom for Kiko and Tommy, and many other nonhuman animals. 4 1 Introduction: Chimpanzees, Rights, and Conceptions of Personhood In December 2013, the Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP) filed a petition for a common law writ of habeas corpus in the New York State Supreme Court on behalf of Tommy, a chimpanzee living alone in a cage in a shed in rural New York (Barlow, 2017).
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2017-2018.Pdf
    COLD SPRING HARBOR CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT ANNUAL REPORT 2017-2018 October 9, 2018 Cold Spring Harbor Central School District The 2017-2018 school year was one in which we created a variety of new learning experiences for our students, all behind the efforts of Cold Spring Harbor teachers and leaders to prepare them for the future. Following the vision driving the district’s board of education goals, all teachers and leaders continued to build an awareness of the Next Generation Learning Standards through a diverse professional development workshops offered by staff developers from around the country and members of the Cold Spring Harbor faculty. Professional development occurred in numerous content areas such as English Language Arts, math, social studies, science, and technology. Teachers also received professional learning in the revised New York State Standards for the Arts. These efforts continue to support many goals including the district’s work in building authentic research experiences for all students in kindergarten through graduation. In addition, our Science Research Program continued to flourish and its expansion provided students with practical experiences and even an opportunity to highlight their work at the Science Research Symposium at the high school, a true example of providing students with opportunities to share high level research with their peers and the community. While there are many highlights to the school year in relation to the district’s goals in the area of technology, the Creative Learning Labs assembled at the two elementary buildings provided students, teachers, and even parents the chance to experience a truly redefined classroom. Designed by teachers and leaders, these state-of-the-art spaces outfitted with flexible furniture, afforded students with the ability to experience enhanced and differentiated learning environments.
    [Show full text]
  • Vegetarian Ecofeminism: a Review Essay
    Vegetarian Ecofeminism: A Review Essay Gaard, Greta Claire. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, Volume 23, Number 3, 2002, pp. 117-146 (Article) Published by University of Nebraska Press DOI: 10.1353/fro.2003.0006 For additional information about this article http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/fro/summary/v023/23.3gaard.html Access provided by Tsinghua University Library (23 Apr 2013 06:09 GMT) 08-N2534 1/17/03 8:47 AM Page 117 Vegetarian Ecofeminism A Review Essay greta gaard Although the roots of ecofeminism can be located in the work of women gar- deners, outdoor enthusiasts, environmental writers, botanists, scientists, ani- mal welfare activists, and abolitionists over the past two centuries, ecofemi- nism’sfirst articulation in the 1980s was shaped by the convergence of the peace, antinuclear, and feminist movements. In the past two decades ecofeminism has developed so rapidly that the time for a broad review of it has already passed; even recent taxonomies do not adequately describe its internal variations. For these reasons, I have chosen to trace the branch of ecofeminism that has been the subject of most disagreement by feminists, ecofeminists, and environmen- talists and is the least understood. This misunderstanding (and the subsequent misrepresentation) of vegetarian ecofeminism must be addressed, I will argue, because this branch of ecofeminism is the logical outgrowth of both feminism and ecofeminism. For if ecofeminism can be seen as the offspring of feminism, then vegetarian ecofeminism is surely feminism’s third generation. Since its inception ecofeminism has had a contentious relationship with the idea of animal liberation. While some ecofeminists have remained silent on the topic of animals, others have emphasized the oppression of nonhuman ani- mals (speciesism) as implicit within an ecofeminist analysis, arguing that speciesism functions like and is inherently linked to racism, sexism, classism, heterosexism, and naturism.
    [Show full text]
  • I Mmmmmmmm I I Mmmmmmmmm I M I M I Mmmmmmmmmm 5A Gross Rents
    OMB No. 1545-0052 Form 990-PF Return of Private Foundation I or Section 4947(a)(1) Trust Treated as Private Foundation À¾µ¼ Do not enter social security numbers on this form as it may be made public. Department of the Treasury I Internal Revenue Service Go to www.irs.gov/Form990PF for instructions and the latest information. Open to Public Inspection For calendar year 2018 or tax year beginning 02/01 , 2018, and ending 01/31 , 20 19 Name of foundation A Employer identification number SALESFORCE.COM FOUNDATION 94-3347800 Number and street (or P.O. box number if mail is not delivered to street address) Room/suite B Telephone number (see instructions) 50 FREMONT ST 300 (866) 924-0450 City or town, state or province, country, and ZIP or foreign postal code C If exemption applicatmionm ism m m m m m I pending, check here SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 m m I G Check all that apply: Initial return Initial return of a former public charity D 1. Foreign organizations, check here Final return Amended return 2. Foreign organizations meeting the 85% test, checkm hem rem anmd am ttamchm m m I Address change Name change computation H Check type of organization: X Section 501(c)(3) exempt private foundation E If private foundation status was terminamtedI Section 4947(a)(1) nonexempt charitable trust Other taxable private foundation under section 507(b)(1)(A), check here I Fair market value of all assets at J Accounting method: Cash X Accrual F If the foundation is in a 60-month terminmatIion end of year (from Part II, col.
    [Show full text]