DOCSLIB.ORG

Leitsberger Phd.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

UNIVERSITY OF WINCHESTER Unleashing the Synergisms of Animal Ethics to Advance Animal Protection Madelaine Leitsberger ORCID Number: 0000-0001-5529-3937 Doctor of Philosophy March 2018 This thesis has been completed as a requirement for a postgraduate research degree of the University of Winchester. DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT STATEMENT Declaration: No portion of the work referred to in the Thesis has been submitted in support of an application for another degree or qualification of this or any other university or other institute of learning. I confirm that this Thesis is entirely my own work. Copyright: Copyright © Madelaine Leitsberger 2018 Unleashing the synergisms of animal ethics to advance animal protection, University of Winchester, PhD Thesis, pp. 1-264 ORCID 0000- 0001-5529-3937 This copy has been supplied on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. Copies (by any process) either in full, or of extracts, may be made only in accordance with instructions given by the author. Details may be obtained from the RKE Centre, University of Winchester. This page must form part of any such copies made. Further copies (by any process) of copies made in accordance with such instructions may not be made without the permission (in writing) of the author. No profit may be made from selling, copying or licensing the author’s work without further agreement. 1 2 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my gratitude to the University of Winchester for awarding me with a 175th scholarship and for providing such a supportive and friendly environment, without which this thesis would not have been possible. I would also like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisors Prof. Neil Messer, Prof. Andrew Knight and Prof. Gary Jones, who have been of invaluable support. Thank you Neil, for the positively challenging philosophical discussions concerning this thesis, and for your calming support, which helped me to keep some peace of mind when this project seemed overwhelming. Thank you Andrew, for your thorough feedback on each chapter, on content, as well as on writing style and grammar, helping me to improve my English considerably and making this an ‘unusually well’ written thesis, as the examiners pointed out. Also thank you for your encouraging support and giving me the opportunity to be part of research and teaching activities at the Centre for Animal Welfare, which were excellent experiences to grow professionally. Gary, thank you for your feedback in particular on the methodology and for your guidance on the interviewing process. Thank you for your cheerful support, your humour and the fact that you always made sure to also say something nice after critical feedback. This hugely contributed to making my supervision meetings enjoyable. Thank you Neil, Andrew and Gary for everything that you have done; without you this thesis would not have come together to this standard and within this rather short timeframe. My gratitude also goes to Prof. Elizabeth Stuart, who so kindly and helpfully acted as my Director of Studies for six months, during Prof. Neil Messer’s sabbatical; and to my examiners, Dr. Alasdair Cochrane and Dr. Thomas Norgaard, for reading and commenting on my thesis, and for a Viva that was challenging but enjoyable. Your feedback was very much appreciated! Furthermore, I would like to thank those fifteen interviewees who so kindly volunteered their opinions, experiences and time. I hope you can recognise your own voice in some of the points raised in this work, as you have influenced my thinking profoundly. Moreover, I would like to thank the research student community and all staff members involved, in particular the RKE team: former Director of PGR students Prof. Pru Marriott, and the current Director of PGR students Dr. Judith McCullouch; the rest of the RKE team including Chrissie Ferngrove, Helen Jones, Dawn Thompson and Kay Carter; Dr. Elena Woodacre (former Postgraduate Student Coordinator-Faculty of HSS); and all the wonderful and brilliant research students I met along the way. In particular, I would like to thank three other research students who have become close friends, Sanne Thierens, Daniel Kontowski and Beth Parson, for reading bits and pieces of my work, providing feedback, discussing my thesis with me and for our weekly vegan meals – you have had a considerable impact on my thinking with regards to veganism, and without you my time in Winchester would not have been as enjoyable. I am also grateful to my family and friends, in particular my parents, grandparents and my cousin Karin for their love, encouragement and support – it means the world to me! Lastly, great thanks goes to my partner, Dinusha, whose unwavering love, encouragement, understanding and support were vital to keeping me engaged and sane in the ups and downs of a PhD project – I love you incredibly much! 3 4 UNIVERSITY OF WINCHESTER ABSTRACT Unleashing the synergisms of animal ethics to advance animal protection Madelaine Leitsberger ORCID Number: 0000-0001-5529-3937 Doctor of Philosophy March 2018 The animal protection movement, like many social change movements, has become divided into moderate and more radical branches, leading to conflicts over the morally correct and strategically most effective approach to achieving their cause (i.e. the animal welfare versus rights debate). These substantial disagreements have supposedly harmed the movement, as they can lead to inefficient use of resources, and weaken the inner cohesion of a broad movement, while strengthening identities of fringe groups, causing alienation of animal advocates, the public and other stakeholders. This is a worrying development, given that the animal protection movement is the major driving force protecting animals, working to fulfil human values, such as avoidance of unnecessary suffering, and aiming to mitigate negative impacts of, for example, intensive farming on the environment and human rights. This thesis explores the disputes between animal welfare and rights through sociological enquiry, using fifteen semi-structured interviews with animal activists, that shed light on differences in opinions, motivations, and experiences. While the results might not be generalizable, they provide a deeper understanding of animal activists than current literature on the topic does. Based on the results, it then engages in a philosophical and practical discussion over how to best resolve disputes, so as to strengthen the animal protection movement. The thesis introduces the principle of proportionality, used to settle human rights conflicts, but which does not appear to have been applied to interspecies rights conflicts (conceptualised as moral tragedies in this thesis). This approach is developed as a non-ideal theory to allow for some anthropocentric concessions, acknowledging current economic, legal, social, and psychological barriers to fully ethical behaviour, which crucially affect the work of animal activists. Moreover, the approach forms a middle-ground between the various approaches as it is a deontological/rights approach at its core, but also contains consequentialist elements, allowing for some weighing with regards to conflicting rights, and because of its non-ideal character. Lastly, the thesis argues that, while individual campaigns might be called into question, a general dismissal of a wide array of approaches cannot be reasonably established. Even the consequent polarization caused by different groups is not necessarily harmful, while uniformity most likely would be. Hence, the movement should acknowledge its shared goal to protect animals and seek unity in its diversity. Keywords: animal welfare, animal rights, utilitarianism, animal advocacy, animal activism, principle of proportionality 5 6 LIST OF CONTENTS DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT STATEMENT 1 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 3 ABSTRACT 5 LIST OF CONTENTS 7 LIST OF FIGURES 11 LIST OF TABLES 12 LIST OF ACCOMPANYING MATERIAL 13 PART I 15 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 15 1.1 THE PROBLEM 15 1.2 THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS 17 1.3 THE APPROACH 18 1.4 THE THESIS 18 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 21 2.1 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW 21 2.2 ANIMAL ETHICS 23 2.2.1 UTILITARIANISM 24 2.2.2 WELFARISM 30 2.2.3 ANIMAL RIGHTS 32 2.3 ANIMAL ACTIVISM 38 2.3.1 ANIMAL WELFARE ACTIVISM 38 2.3.2 ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISM 39 2.4 SUMMARY 41 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 43 3.1 RESEARCH CONTEXT 43 3.2 THE DESIGN PROCESS 45 3.2.1 SAMPLING TECHNIQUE 45 3.2.2 ANIMAL WELFARE ORGANISATIONS 47 3.2.3 ANIMAL RIGHTS ORGANISATIONS 53 3.3 DATA COLLECTION 57 3.3.1 THE TOPIC GUIDE 58 7 3.3.2 MODIFICATION TO THE RESEARCH INSTRUMENT 61 3.3.3 ACCESS TO PARTICIPANTS, ETHICS AND INFORMED CONSENT 63 3.4 DATA ANALYSIS AND DEVELOPMENT OF FURTHER CHAPTERS 65 PART II 69 CHAPTER 4: ETHICS 70 4.1 GENERAL OVERVIEW 70 4.1.1 ANIMAL WELFARE 70 4.1.2 ANIMAL RIGHTS 75 4.2 SUFFERING 78 4.3 KILLING 79 4.3.1 SUFFERING AND THE REASON TO KILL AS MORALLY PROBLEMATIC 80 4.3.2 OTHER MORAL ISSUES 82 4.3.3 THE VALUE OF LIFE AND LIFEBOAT CASES 83 4.3.4 EUTHANASIA 83 4.4 COMMODIFICATION 85 4.5 CONCEPTIONS (AND MISCONCEPTIONS) OF RIGHTS 87 4.6 COMPASSION 89 4.7 CONCLUSION 92 CHAPTER 5: CAMPAIGNING 93 5.1 GENERAL OVERVIEW 94 5.1.1 ANIMAL WELFARE 94 5.1.2 ANIMAL RIGHTS 95 5.2 LEGISLATIVE CAMPAIGNS 96 5.3 SINGLE ISSUE CAMPAIGNS 99 5.3.1 REASONS TO ENGAGE IN SINGLE ISSUE CAMPAIGNS 99 5.3.2 THE COMPLACENCY ISSUE 102 5.4 PROBLEMATIC CAMPAIGNS 104 5.4.1 SHOCKING CAMPAIGNS 104 5.4.2 POLITICALLY CONTROVERSIAL CAMPAIGNS 105 5.4.3 DIRECT
Recommended publications
  • UNITED for People and Animals

    UNITED for People and Animals

    NEWS May 2020 - Issue 125 UNITED for people and animals COVID-19 Research Updates Our incredible Journey & Impacts Protect the Animal Free Future Contents CHAIR OF THE BOARD .......................................... 3 FROM OUR PATRON .............................................. 4 MESSAGE FROM CEO ............................................ 5 OUR HISTORY ........................................................ 6 CELEBRATING 50 YEARS ....................................... 8 ARC 1.0 .................................................................10 ARC 2.0 .................................................................11 CURRENT PROJECTS ..........................................12 THE COVID-19 VACCINE PARADOX ..................14 CURRENT PROJECTS: COVID-19 .......................16 REVIEW .................................................................18 MEET THE SAP .....................................................20 PARTNERSHIPS ....................................................22 YOUR IMPACT FOR ANIMALS .............................24 FABULOUS FUNDRAISERS ..................................26 HOW YOU CAN HELP ..........................................28 SHOPPING ...........................................................30 FROM OUR PATRON ............................................31 BOARD OF TRUSTEES CHAIR: Ms Laura-Jane Sheridan VICE CHAIR: Ms Natalie Barbosa TREASURER: Mr Daniel Cameron Dr Christopher (Kit) Byatt Professor Amanda Ellison Ms Julia Jones COMPANY SECRETARY: Ms Sally Luther Animal Free Research UK SCIENTIFIC
  • Physiology-2021-Abstract-Book.Pdf (Physoc.Org)

    Physiology-2021-Abstract-Book.Pdf (Physoc.Org)

    Physiology 2021 Our Annual Conference 12 – 16 July 2021 Online | Worldwide #Physiology2021 Contents Prize Lectures 1 Symposia 7 Oral Communications 63 Poster Communications 195 Abstracts Experiments on animals and animal tissues It is a requirement of The Society that all vertebrates (and Octopus vulgaris) used in experiments are humanely treated and, where relevant, humanely killed. To this end authors must tick the appropriate box to confirm that: For work conducted in the UK, all procedures accorded with current UK legislation. For work conducted elsewhere, all procedures accorded with current national legislation/guidelines or, in their absence, with current local guidelines. Experiments on humans or human tissue Authors must tick the appropriate box to confirm that: All procedures accorded with the ethical standards of the relevant national, institutional or other body responsible for human research and experimentation, and with the principles of the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki. Guidelines on the Submission and Presentation of Abstracts Please note, to constitute an acceptable abstract, The Society requires the following ethical criteria to be met. To be acceptable for publication, experiments on living vertebrates and Octopus vulgaris must conform with the ethical requirements of The Society regarding relevant authorisation, as indicated in Step 2 of submission. Abstracts of Communications or Demonstrations must state the type of animal used (common name or genus, including man. Where applicable, abstracts must specify the anaesthetics used, and their doses and route of administration, for all experimental procedures (including preparative surgery, e.g. ovariectomy, decerebration, etc.). For experiments involving neuromuscular blockade, the abstract must give the type and dose, plus the methods used to monitor the adequacy of anaesthesia during blockade (or refer to a paper with these details).
  • Global Animal Partnership Et Al. May 3, 2017 Page 1

    Global Animal Partnership Et Al. May 3, 2017 Page 1

    Internal Revenue Service TE/GE Division Re: Global Animal Partnership et al. May 3, 2017 Page 1 May 3, 2017 Ms. Tamera L. Ripperda Director Exempt Organizations Internal Revenue Service 1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20224 Re: Global Animal Partnership EIN: 20-2234609 The Humane Society of the United States EIN: 53-0225390 Dear Ms. Ripperda: I am writing to alert the IRS to apparent use of charitable funds by a private operating foundation for the impermissible private benefit of one of its disqualified persons. Facts—Introduction Global Animal Partnership is a private operating foundation founded by, and with contributions from, Whole Foods Market. Global Animal Partnership’s sole substantial activity appears to be the operation of a program to certify that certain food products sold by Whole Foods Market. In addition, Whole Foods Market may be paying fees to Global Animal Partnership to provide services that benefit Whole Foods Market. Whole Foods Market Corporation (“Whole Foods”) is a Texas-based chain of premium supermarkets that promotes itself as “America’s Healthiest Grocery Store.” Whole Foods provides both traditional groceries and meat and poultry products, as well as prepared foods. In 2005, Whole Foods founded Global Animal Partnership (GAP), a tax-exempt organization whose principal activity is developing and promoting its “5-Step® Animal Welfare Rating Standards.” In turn, the Standards’ principal use appears to be to certify that meat products sold by Whole Foods Market satisfy the Standards. Whole Foods’ founder and long-time CEO, John Mackey, was a board member of GAP until 2014. John Mackey also serves on the board of the Humane Society of the United States, EIN: 53- 0225390, which is exempt from federal income tax under §501(c)(3) The Humane Society of the Internal Revenue Service TE/GE Division Re: Global Animal Partnership et al.
  • The Use of Non-Human Primates in Research in Primates Non-Human of Use The

    The Use of Non-Human Primates in Research in Primates Non-Human of Use The

    The use of non-human primates in research The use of non-human primates in research A working group report chaired by Sir David Weatherall FRS FMedSci Report sponsored by: Academy of Medical Sciences Medical Research Council The Royal Society Wellcome Trust 10 Carlton House Terrace 20 Park Crescent 6-9 Carlton House Terrace 215 Euston Road London, SW1Y 5AH London, W1B 1AL London, SW1Y 5AG London, NW1 2BE December 2006 December Tel: +44(0)20 7969 5288 Tel: +44(0)20 7636 5422 Tel: +44(0)20 7451 2590 Tel: +44(0)20 7611 8888 Fax: +44(0)20 7969 5298 Fax: +44(0)20 7436 6179 Fax: +44(0)20 7451 2692 Fax: +44(0)20 7611 8545 Email: E-mail: E-mail: E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Web: www.acmedsci.ac.uk Web: www.mrc.ac.uk Web: www.royalsoc.ac.uk Web: www.wellcome.ac.uk December 2006 The use of non-human primates in research A working group report chaired by Sir David Weatheall FRS FMedSci December 2006 Sponsors’ statement The use of non-human primates continues to be one the most contentious areas of biological and medical research. The publication of this independent report into the scientific basis for the past, current and future role of non-human primates in research is both a necessary and timely contribution to the debate. We emphasise that members of the working group have worked independently of the four sponsoring organisations. Our organisations did not provide input into the report’s content, conclusions or recommendations.
  • Aus Politik Und Zeitgeschichte Mensch Und Tier

    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.
  • Animal Rights Movement

    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.
  • Scarlet Letters: Meat, Normality and the Power of Shaming

    Scarlet Letters: Meat, Normality and the Power of Shaming

    Scarlet Letters: Meat, Normality and the Power of Shaming By Nicolas Delon In 2018 and 2019, a series of attacks by vegan activists struck meat- related businesses in France. Deemed “extreme” and “violent” by butchers, these actions invite us to reflect on the ethics of activism. Is it ever morally permissible to engage in illegal activism? Are tactics such as shaming even effective? As of this writing, a butcher shop in Paris was just vandalized, allegedly by vegan activists. From November 2018 to February 2019, a series of attacks struck meat-related businesses in the north of France. The damage included broken windows, fires at butchers’ shops, fishmongers, and restaurants, inflicted on nocturnal raids where activists also scrawled slogans such as “Stop Speciesism” and “Assassins”. Last June, butchers wrote to the interior ministry a letter to request increased protection, worrying about the consequences of “excessive media hype around vegan lifestyles”, and that vegans wanted to “impose their lifestyle on the immense majority of people”. Two animal rights activists were recently convicted of criminal damage by a court in Lille. “We needed an example to be made of them so that these actions by small groups with extremist and profoundly violent ideas come to an end,” said the head of the local butchers’ federation, Laurent Rigaud. France is no stranger to protests but the attacks shocked many in a country where gastronomy takes pride of place in culture. The attacks took place against the background of growing discussions around meat, animal abuse, veganism and speciesism, fueled in part by a string of undercover investigations led by the animal rights organization L-214 in slaughterhouses.
  • Farm Animal Funders Briefings

    Farm Animal Funders Briefings

    BRIEFING SERIES February, 2019 v1.0 TABLE OF CONTENTS Smart Giving: Some Fundamentals 2 Supporting Alternative Foods To Farmed Animal Products 4 Veg Advocacy 7 Corporate Campaigns For Welfare Reforms 9 Fishes 12 Legal and Legislative Methods 13 A Global Perspective on Farmed Animal Advocacy 15 Shallow Review: Increasing Donations Through Your Donation 19 2 Smart Giving: Some Fundamentals How Much To Give? There are a number of approaches to how much to give, Why Give? including: For the world: There are over 100 hundred billion farmed animals alive at any moment in conditions that Giving what you don’t need cause severe suffering, that number has been increasing over time and is projected to continue to do so. Consuming animal products is associated with many x % Pledging a set percentage negative health outcomes and animal agriculture is a chief cause of environmental degradation—causing approximately 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions. % Giving to reach a personal best For you: Giving activates the brain’s reward centers, Some people give everything above what is necessary to resulting in increased life satisfaction and happiness. satisfy their needs, in part because of evidence that high levels of income have diminishing returns on wellbeing. How Can We Help Identify Cost-effective Funding Thousands of people (including some of the wealthiest) How To Give? Opportunities? publicly pledge some set percentage for giving. Pledging could increase your commitment to giving, further Effective giving is important because top Farmed Animal Funders release briefings and research connect you with a giving community, and inspire others. giving options are plausibly many times more different promising areas.
  • The Definition of Effective Altruism

    The Definition of Effective Altruism

    OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/08/19, SPi 1 The Definition of Effective Altruism William MacAskill There are many problems in the world today. Over 750 million people live on less than $1.90 per day (at purchasing power parity).1 Around 6 million children die each year of easily preventable causes such as malaria, diarrhea, or pneumonia.2 Climate change is set to wreak environmental havoc and cost the economy tril- lions of dollars.3 A third of women worldwide have suffered from sexual or other physical violence in their lives.4 More than 3,000 nuclear warheads are in high-alert ready-to-launch status around the globe.5 Bacteria are becoming antibiotic- resistant.6 Partisanship is increasing, and democracy may be in decline.7 Given that the world has so many problems, and that these problems are so severe, surely we have a responsibility to do something about them. But what? There are countless problems that we could be addressing, and many different ways of addressing each of those problems. Moreover, our resources are scarce, so as individuals and even as a globe we can’t solve all these problems at once. So we must make decisions about how to allocate the resources we have. But on what basis should we make such decisions? The effective altruism movement has pioneered one approach. Those in this movement try to figure out, of all the different uses of our resources, which uses will do the most good, impartially considered. This movement is gathering con- siderable steam. There are now thousands of people around the world who have chosen
  • December 9Th 1987

    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.
  • Journal of Animal Law 2005.01.Pdf

    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.
  • Freshman Seminar – Animal Studies HORR 108; Mon and Weds 12:00-1:15 Prerequisites: None

    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.