DOCSLIB.ORG

©Copyright 2012 Karen S. Emmerman-Mazner

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
©Copyright 2012 Karen S. Emmerman-Mazner ©Copyright 2012 Karen S. Emmerman-Mazner Beyond the Basic/Nonbasic Interests Distinction: A Feminist Approach to Inter-Species Moral Conflict and Moral Repair Karen S. Emmerman-Mazner A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Washington 2012 Reading Committee: Sara L. Goering, Chair Stephen M. Gardiner Lori Gruen Jean V. Roberts Program Authorized to Offer Degree: Department of Philosophy University of Washington Abstract Beyond the Basic/Nonbasic Interests Distinction: A Feminist Approach to Inter-Species Moral Conflict and Moral Repair Karen S. Emmerman-Mazner Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Sara L. Goering, Associate Professor Department of Philosophy There is no longer a dearth of well-reasoned argumentation for taking animals seriously and thus for questioning our exploitative relationships with them. It is over-determined that animals warrant moral attention. However, playing close attention to animals quickly reveals that taking their interests into account often generates conflicts with humans’ interests. One common way to adjudicate competing claims is to point to a difference between basic interests (food, shelter, water, medical care, and avoiding unnecessary pain) and nonbasic interests (non- subsistence related interests) and claim that basic interests are always more important, morally speaking, than nonbasic ones. For example, a human’s nonbasic interest in delicious chicken soup ought not to trump a chicken’s basic interest in not suffering a horrific life under factory farming conditions and being killed for others’ consumption. Careful attention to humans’ interests reveals, however, that some of our seemingly less important interests are tied to highly valued ends. The chicken soup may play a significant role in my Jewish culture and in my relationship with my grandmother, for example. A tension can arise, therefore, between (1) the insight that animals’ moral considerability warrants that we not harm them in service of nonbasic human interests and (2) the insight that some of our nonbasic interests are nonetheless morally significant. This tension is the focal point of my dissertation. I critically examine three methodologies for managing the tension between strong obligations to animals and the robustness of human interests (from philosophers Peter Singer, Paul Taylor, and Gary Varner). After arguing that all three are deficient in important ways, I recommend a feminist approach to inter-species conflicts of interest that I think best addresses the tension. The feminist approach is pluralist, non-hierarchical, and contextualized. It highlights how relationships of love and care complicate both humans’ and animals’ interests. It also underscores the importance of undertaking the work of moral repair in both the inter-human and inter-species realms when causing harm to some party is unavoidable. Thus, the feminist methodology is well positioned to take seriously our strong obligations to animals without ignoring or discounting the robustness of human interests. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Chapter One: Introduction………………………………………………………………… 1 Chapter Two: Peter Singer’s Minimalist Approach………………………………………. 14 Chapter Three: Paul Taylor’s Moderate Approach……………………………………….. 64 Chapter Four: Gary Varner’s Robust Approach………………………………………….. 117 Chapter Five: Inter-Animal Conflicts of Interest: A Feminist Approach………………… 162 References…………………………………………………………………………………. 232 i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my committee for all of their work on my behalf. Sara Goering took me on as her student during her maternity leave. This gesture of selflessness and support was just the beginning of the many gifts she gave me over the past several years. My work is better for having received her careful scrutiny and my life is better for having spent time in her company. I am grateful to my dissertation committee members for their inspiration, encouragement, and philosophical insight (Steve Gardiner, Jean Roberts, Lori Gruen, and Jamie Mayerfeld). I am particularly indebted to Lori for bringing me into the fold of ecofeminist animal theorists and for being an inspiration to me for what it means to be an academic and an activist. Dissertation writing is a lot about wrestling with one’s demons. The wrestling is much easier to bear when one has an extraordinary community of support around oneself. I am lucky enough to have several communities of support. I would like to thank all of the graduate students in the Philosophy department who read and commented on my work. This list includes Ben Almassi, Monica Aufrecht, Jason Benchimol, Renee Conroy, Asia Ferrin, Jeremy Fischer, Rachel Fredericks, Brandon Morgan-Olsen, Janice Moskalik, Chris Partridge, and Amy Reed- Sandoval. Monica and I started graduate school together in the fall of 2003 and the journey from coursework to PhD would have been unbearable without her. Ben Almassi and Renee Conroy are unflagging sources of stability and inspiration. They exemplify generosity and compassion. Ben’s wife, Negin, is a treasured friend. Janice has been a constant source of support over the past several years. We have shared many of the ups and downs of mothering while in graduate school. Amy Reed-Sandoval arrived at the UW during my last few years and we instantly bonded over our approach to philosophy: both Amy and I see philosophy as an important means ii to social change and engagement in the world. I was assigned to be Asia Ferrin’s mentor in the department when she started. Out of that mentor/mentee relationship grew one of my most cherished friendships. Ben Stenberg was my lead TA my first year and has been a loving and supportive presence ever since. Barb Mack ushered me through graduate school with grace and love. Bev Wessel kept me on track and Gina Gould made me laugh. Ann Baker, Ingra Schellenberg, Andrea Woody, and Alison Wylie mentored and befriended me in ways that enriched my time immeasurably. Through his life and tragic death, my friend Saikat Guha reminded me that philosophy is incredibly important but not the only important thing in life. Maria Elena Garcia, Katie Gillespie, and Tony Lucero and I met when working together on Animal Studies at the UW. What started off as a mutual interest in human/animal relationships has turned into friendships that epitomize mutual understanding and love. I am eternally grateful to my community of friends in Seattle outside of the Philosophy Department. They include Sarah Benton Kent, Graham Kent, Elan Lee, Eugene Lin, Raven Bonnar-Pizzorno, Ari Cetron, Heidi Blythe, Owen Braun, Brandelyn Bergstedt, Jennifer Glick, Lori Chudnofsky, Jennifer Mendelson, and Autumn Jacobsen. I have known Rachel Coppola, Amy Dwyer, and Lucretia Koba nearly my entire life. They heard me say, at 16, that I wanted to get a PhD in philosophy and focus on animal ethics. Sarah Standard has been a source of love and friendship for twenty years. More than anyone else, these women know what it took for me to accomplish this life goal. I hope they also know that I would not be here without them. My parents always told me that I could do anything I set my mind to. More importantly, they taught me to question the world I live in and to have the courage of my convictions. My brothers, Daniel and Timothy, helped me develop the sense of humor that enables me to get iii through even the darkest of days. Even though Daniel wants to open a meat store and Tim thinks he is smarter than me, I love them both dearly. I am also very lucky to have married into a family that encouraged and cheered me on throughout graduate school. My thanks to all the Mazners. Jeremy Mazner is the best life partner a person could hope for. From the very beginning of our time together he has taken the pursuit of my dream to be a joint effort. This has meant enduring endless conversations about what, exactly, Paul Taylor meant by “intrinsically incompatible with respect for nature” as well as lovingly guiding me through periods of stress and anxiety that are utterly foreign to his own even-keel disposition. While I was in graduate school, Oliver Mazner grew from a NICU baby to a robust six year old with whom I can both make up ridiculous songs and talk about why holding animals in captivity is morally problematic. He is the embodiment of my hope for the future. Kelly Baker’s love and affection for Oliver made it possible for me to confidently hand him over to someone else’s care so I could focus on my work. Her presence in our lives has been a tremendous gift. Finally, working on my dissertation was an inter-species effort. I thank Irene, Darwin, Foster, and Wiggle for affection and allowing me to share their space while I worked at their homes. My dear friend Willy Baker-Bonjour was an extraordinary dog who played a vital role in my early graduate years. Thanks to Sara’s dog, Grover, for providing comic relief during our meetings. My own cats Théo, Teddy, and Ira have taught me so much about why animals matter and what it means to try to understand what animals want and need from us. When I look at them and their capacity for joy and love I become ever more determined to bring an end to animals’ suffering. iv DEDICATION In loving memory of Norman S. Care, my philosophy advisor at Oberlin College. Norm taught me that philosophy should be as much about what is in your heart as what is in your head. v 1 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION In the nearly three years it took me to write this dissertation, in the United States alone, approximately 27.4 billion nonhuman animals were slaughtered for human consumption.1 Between three million and three hundred million animals were used in biomedical research.2 Our reliance on animals for human purposes is staggering.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Journal of Animal Law Received Generous Support from the Animal Legal Defense Fund and the Michigan State University College of Law
    JOURNAL OF ANIMAL LAW Michigan State University College of Law APRIL 2009 Volume V J O U R N A L O F A N I M A L L A W Vol. V 2009 EDITORIAL BOARD 2008-2009 Editor-in-Chief ANN A BA UMGR A S Managing Editor JENNIFER BUNKER Articles Editor RA CHEL KRISTOL Executive Editor BRITT A NY PEET Notes & Comments Editor JA NE LI Business Editor MEREDITH SH A R P Associate Editors Tabb Y MCLA IN AKISH A TOWNSEND KA TE KUNK A MA RI A GL A NCY ERIC A ARMSTRONG Faculty Advisor DA VID FA VRE J O U R N A L O F A N I M A L L A W Vol. V 2009 Pee R RE VI E W COMMITT ee 2008-2009 TA IMIE L. BRY A NT DA VID CA SSUTO DA VID FA VRE , CH A IR RE B ECC A J. HUSS PETER SA NKOFF STEVEN M. WISE The Journal of Animal Law received generous support from the Animal Legal Defense Fund and the Michigan State University College of Law. Without their generous support, the Journal would not have been able to publish and host its second speaker series. The Journal also is funded by subscription revenues. Subscription requests and article submissions may be sent to: Professor Favre, Journal of Animal Law, Michigan State University College of Law, 368 Law College Building, East Lansing MI 48824. The Journal of Animal Law is published annually by law students at ABA accredited law schools. Membership is open to any law student attending an ABA accredited law college.
    [Show full text]
  • Rolston on Animals, Ethics, and the Factory Farm
    [Expositions 6.1 (2012) 29–40] Expositions (online) ISSN: 1747–5376 Unnaturally Cruel: Rolston on Animals, Ethics, and the Factory Farm CHRISTIAN DIEHM University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point In 2010, over nine billion animals were killed in the United States for human consumption. This included nearly 1 million calves, 2.5 million sheep and lambs, 34 million cattle, 110 million hogs, 242 million turkeys, and well over 8.7 billion chickens (USDA 2011a; 2011b). Though hundreds of slaughterhouses actively contributed to these totals, more than half of the cattle just mentioned were killed at just fourteen plants. A slightly greater percentage of hogs was killed at only twelve (USDA 2011a). Chickens were processed in a total of three hundred and ten federally inspected facilities (USDA 2011b), which means that if every facility operated at the same capacity, each would have slaughtered over fifty-three birds per minute (nearly one per second) in every minute of every day, adding up to more than twenty-eight million apiece over the course of twelve months.1 Incredible as these figures may seem, 2010 was an average year for agricultural animals. Indeed, for nearly a decade now the total number of birds and mammals killed annually in the US has come in at or above the nine billion mark, and such enormous totals are possible only by virtue of the existence of an equally enormous network of industrialized agricultural suppliers. These high-volume farming operations – dubbed “factory farms” by the general public, or “Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)” by state and federal agencies – are defined by the ways in which they restrict animals’ movements and behaviors, locate more and more bodies in less and less space, and increasingly mechanize many aspects of traditional husbandry.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sexual Politics of Meat by Carol J. Adams
    THE SEXUAL POLITICS OF MEAT A FEMINISTVEGETARIAN CRITICAL THEORY Praise for The Sexual Politics of Meat and Carol J. Adams “A clearheaded scholar joins the ideas of two movements—vegetari- anism and feminism—and turns them into a single coherent and moral theory. Her argument is rational and persuasive. New ground—whole acres of it—is broken by Adams.” —Colman McCarthy, Washington Post Book World “Th e Sexual Politics of Meat examines the historical, gender, race, and class implications of meat culture, and makes the links between the prac tice of butchering/eating animals and the maintenance of male domi nance. Read this powerful new book and you may well become a vegetarian.” —Ms. “Adams’s work will almost surely become a ‘bible’ for feminist and pro gressive animal rights activists. Depiction of animal exploita- tion as one manifestation of a brutal patriarchal culture has been explored in two [of her] books, Th e Sexual Politics of Meat and Neither Man nor Beast: Feminism and the Defense of Animals. Adams argues that factory farming is part of a whole culture of oppression and insti- tutionalized violence. Th e treatment of animals as objects is parallel to and associated with patriarchal society’s objectifi cation of women, blacks, and other minorities in order to routinely exploit them. Adams excels in constructing unexpected juxtapositions by using the language of one kind of relationship to illuminate another. Employing poetic rather than rhetorical techniques, Adams makes powerful connec- tions that encourage readers to draw their own conclusions.” —Choice “A dynamic contribution toward creating a feminist/animal rights theory.” —Animals’ Agenda “A cohesive, passionate case linking meat-eating to the oppression of animals and women .
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vitae
    Curriculum Vitae Name: Daniel A. Dombrowski Birthdate: August 8, l953 Citizenship: USA Address: Philosophy Department; Seattle University; Seattle, WA 98122 Phone: 206-296-5465 E-mail: <[email protected]> Education: University of Maine, B.A., l974 Saint Louis University, Ph.D., l978 Books: l. Plato's Philosophy of History (Washington, DC: University Press of America, l98l), 217 pp. 2. The Philosophy of Vegetarianism (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, l984), 188 pp. Also Vegetarianism: The Philosophy Behind the Ethical Diet (London: Thorsons, l985), 188 pp. Forward by Peter Singer. 3. Thoreau the Platonist (Frankfurt: Verlag Peter Lang, l986), 219 pp. 4. Hartshorne and the Metaphysics of Animal Rights (Albany: State University of New York Press, l988), 159 pp. 5. Christian Pacifism (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1991), 181 pp. 6. St. John of the Cross: An Appreciation (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992), 219 pp. 7. Analytic Theism, Hartshorne, and the Concept of God (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1996), 247 pp. 8. Babies and Beasts: The Argument from Marginal Cases (Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 1997), 221 pp. 9. Kazantzakis and God (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997), 193 pp. 10. A Brief, Liberal, Catholic Defense of Abortion, with Robert Deltete (Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 2000), 158 pp. Also Una Difesa Cattolica Dell’Aborto. Tr. Susi Ferrarello (Rome: Aracne, 2013), 157 pp. 1 11. Not Even a Sparrow Falls: The Philosophy of Stephen R. L. Clark (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 2000), 366 pp. 12. Rawls and Religion: The Case for Political Liberalism (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2001), 192 pp.
    [Show full text]
  • Farm Animal Sanctuary Table of Contents
    HOW TO START, OPERATE, AND DEVELOP A FARM ANIMAL SANCTUARY TABLE OF CONTENTS ESTABLISHING A SANCTUARY..………….……...………..…………….......…………....…......…..……1 Choosing Your Site..………………………...........…………………………………...……………......…..……1 Your Big-Picture Plan..……………………………………………………………................................1 Zoning...…………………………………………………………………………………………....…..….1 Physical Features..………………………………………………………………………….....…..……..1 Sanctuary Registration & Incorporation..…..…….....………………………………………...................…...3 Public vs. Private..………………………………………………………………………......…..………..3 State Nonprofit Incorporation...……………………………….........................................………..…3 Federal Nonprofit Status...…………………………………………………………….…….…...………4 Choosing the Board of Directors...………….……………………………………..........…….......….…….......4 Nonprofit Management Resources…..………...……………………………………………….......….……….5 Other Resources….…………………………………………………………………………………............…….5 OPERATING A SANCTUARY………………………....…………………………………..……...…………...6 Animal Care and Shelter Operations……….…………...……………………………………..……………..…6 Feeding and Watering………………………………………………………………...………………….6 Medical and Health Care………………………………………………………………..………………..6 Housing…………………………………………………………………………………………………….7 Incoming Animals………………………………………………………………………..………………..8 Outgoing Animals………………………………………………………………………..………………..9 Record Keeping …………….………………………………………………..……….………………..10 Shelter Regulations………………..................……......……………………………………………….………11 Licenses and Permits…………..…………………………………………………………………….…11 State Veterinary
    [Show full text]
  • Spring Newsletter 2016
    2016 Additions to our Farm Family Silky & Satin Two lambs have a new lease on life at our sanctuary. Silky and Satin (right) were born on February 7, 2016 on a production farm, destined for slaughter. Soon after birth they had their tails cut off and their ears hole-punched for identity tags, with no an- esthesia. Their mom rejected them, and both lambs sustained broken legs. The farm did not want to care for them so they lived in the vet’s dining room while their legs healed and then they joined our Safe Haven family. They spend their days bounc- ing around, exploring the farm and sneaking into the feed room whenever they get the chance. We are so pleased to have these two cuties as part of our farm family! Amos the Rooster Amos was rescued by a compassionate person in a nearby town. The little rooster had a deformed leg and was being chased and pecked by 4 other roosters who lived in the yard. A neighbor took pity on the little rooster and let him hide under his deck; Amos would only come out at night when the other roosters had gone to bed. Here at Safe Haven, Amos moved in with three friendly hens: Stretch, Rachel and Ardsley (her story is on Pg. 2). IN THIS ISSUE For the first time in his life, Amos wasn’t pecked and chased. He joined the hens to eat, and started taking dust baths and Additions to our Farm Family 1, 2 Memories of Claria 3 hunting for bugs in the grass with them.
    [Show full text]
  • “Good Death” in Small Animals and Consequences for Euthanasia in Animal Law and Veterinary Practice
    animals Article Philosophy of a “Good Death” in Small Animals and Consequences for Euthanasia in Animal Law and Veterinary Practice Kirsten Persson 1,*, Felicitas Selter 2, Gerald Neitzke 2 and Peter Kunzmann 1 1 Stiftung Tierärztliche Hochschule Hannover, Bünteweg 9, 30559 Hannover, Germany; [email protected] 2 Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Carl-Neuberg-Straße 1, 30625 Hannover, Germany; [email protected] (F.S.); [email protected] (G.N.) * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 30 November 2019; Accepted: 7 January 2020; Published: 13 January 2020 Simple Summary: Euthanasia in veterinary practice is often discussed as one of the profession’s major burdens. At the same time, it is meant to bring relief to terminally ill and/or severely suffering animal patients. This article examines “euthanasia” from a philosophical perspective regarding different definitions and underlying basic assumptions concerning the meaning of death and welfare for nonhuman animals. These theoretical issues will then be discussed in relation to laws and guidelines on euthanasia and practical challenges with end-of-life decisions in small animal practice. Factors which are identified as potential causes of the complex problems regarding euthanasia are as follows: the confusing framework for euthanasia in law and soft regulations; the inclusion of many stakeholders’ perspectives in end-of-life decision-making; potential conflicts between the veterinarians’ personal morality and legal requirements and professional expectations; and, most of all, the veterinarians’ lack of awareness for underlying philosophical assumptions regarding possible understandings of euthanasia. Different practical suggestions are made to clarify and facilitate euthanasia in small animal practice.
    [Show full text]
  • Biocentrism in Environmental Ethics: Questions of Inherent Worth, Etiology, and Teleofunctional Interests David Lewis Rice III University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
    University of Arkansas, Fayetteville ScholarWorks@UARK Theses and Dissertations 8-2016 Biocentrism in Environmental Ethics: Questions of Inherent Worth, Etiology, and Teleofunctional Interests David Lewis Rice III University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd Part of the Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Rice, David Lewis III, "Biocentrism in Environmental Ethics: Questions of Inherent Worth, Etiology, and Teleofunctional Interests" (2016). Theses and Dissertations. 1650. http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/1650 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Biocentrism in Environmental Ethics: Questions of Inherent Worth, Etiology, and Teleofunctional Interests A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy by David Rice Delta State University Bachelor of Science in Biology, 1994 Delta State University Master of Science in Natural Sciences in Biology, 1999 University of Mississippi Master of Arts in Philosophy, 2009 August 2016 University of Arkansas This dissertation is approved for recommendation to the Graduate Council. ____________________________________ Dr. Richard Lee Dissertation Director ____________________________________ ____________________________________ Dr. Warren Herold Dr. Tom Senor Committee Member Committee Member Abstract Some biocentrists argue that all living things have "inherent worth". Anything that has inherent worth has interests that provide a reason for why all moral agents should care about it in and of itself. There are, however, some difficulties for biocentric individualist arguments which claim that all living things have inherent worth.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ethical Consistency of Animal Equality
    1 The ethical consistency of animal equality Stijn Bruers, Sept 2013, DRAFT 2 Contents 0. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................ 5 0.1 SUMMARY: TOWARDS A COHERENT THEORY OF ANIMAL EQUALITY ........................................................................ 9 1. PART ONE: ETHICAL CONSISTENCY ......................................................................................................... 18 1.1 THE BASIC ELEMENTS ................................................................................................................................. 18 a) The input data: moral intuitions .......................................................................................................... 18 b) The method: rule universalism............................................................................................................. 20 1.2 THE GOAL: CONSISTENCY AND COHERENCE ..................................................................................................... 27 1.3 THE PROBLEM: MORAL ILLUSIONS ................................................................................................................ 30 a) Optical illusions .................................................................................................................................... 30 b) Moral illusions ....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Book Reviews
    Book Reviews Robin ATTFIELD. Environmental Ethics. Cambridge: Polity, 2014. 278 pp. The counterculture of the 1960s gave rise to the plea for new moral values: a new environmental ethic. While some works in this discipline still give the impression that ‘environmental ethics’ is a label for a particular set of norms, Robin Attfield correctly points out that it is just another field of application of normative enquiry, which encom- passes very diverse substantial views. As such, environmental ethics has made its way into university and college courses, where it is accompanied by partly overlapping fields of applied ethics, such as climate ethics, population ethics and animal ethics. The first edition of Attfield’s Environmental Ethics appeared around the turn of the new millennium and was meant to assist students, researchers and scholars in this discipline. It intro- duced relevant concepts and issues and it discussed a wide range of relevant schools of thought. Attfield also defended his own normative theory, which is called ‘biocentric consequentialism’. Throughout the book, Attfield provided opportunities to pause and review the issues raised in proceeding sections. Furthermore, he offered chapter summaries, a glossary of key terms, and suggestions for further reading as well as useful websites. The second edition retains these features, but is fully revised and expanded, most notably with a chapter on climate ethics. This makes for the following outline: Chapter 1 provides a categorization of environmental problems and introduces theories about the genesis of these problems. Chapter 2 introduces the major contending views concerning which entities ought to be given direct moral consideration: only humans or all sentient beings, or even plants or collectives, such as species or ecosystems? Chapter 3 explores in more detail whether a concern for human good covers all that matters morally and inquires to what extent going beyond it is useful and even possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Bovine Benefactories: an Examination of the Role of Religion in Cow Sanctuaries Across the United States
    BOVINE BENEFACTORIES: AN EXAMINATION OF THE ROLE OF RELIGION IN COW SANCTUARIES ACROSS THE UNITED STATES _______________________________________________________________ A Dissertation Submitted to the Temple University Graduate Board _______________________________________________________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY ________________________________________________________________ by Thomas Hellmuth Berendt August, 2018 Examing Committee Members: Sydney White, Advisory Chair, TU Department of Religion Terry Rey, TU Department of Religion Laura Levitt, TU Department of Religion Tom Waidzunas, External Member, TU Deparment of Sociology ABSTRACT This study examines the growing phenomenon to protect the bovine in the United States and will question to what extent religion plays a role in the formation of bovine sanctuaries. My research has unearthed that there are approximately 454 animal sanctuaries in the United States, of which 146 are dedicated to farm animals. However, of this 166 only 4 are dedicated to pigs, while 17 are specifically dedicated to the bovine. Furthermore, another 50, though not specifically dedicated to cows, do use the cow as the main symbol for their logo. Therefore the bovine is seemingly more represented and protected than any other farm animal in sanctuaries across the United States. The question is why the bovine, and how much has religion played a role in elevating this particular animal above all others. Furthermore, what constitutes a sanctuary? Does
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Research Paper Series
    Legal Research Paper Series NON HUMAN ANIMALS AND THE LAW: A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF ANIMAL LAW RESOURCES AT THE STANFORD LAW LIBRARY By Rita K. Lomio and J. Paul Lomio Research Paper No. 6 October 2005 Robert Crown Law Library Crown Quadrangle Stanford, California 94305-8612 NON HUMAN ANIMALS AND THE LAW: A BIBLIOGRPAHY OF ANIMAL LAW RESOURCES AT THE STANFORD LAW LIBRARY I. Books II. Reports III. Law Review Articles IV. Newspaper Articles (including legal newspapers) V. Sound Recordings and Films VI. Web Resources I. Books RESEARCH GUIDES AND BIBLIOGRAPHIES Hoffman, Piper, and the Harvard Student Animal Legal Defense Fund The Guide to Animal Law Resources Hollis, New Hampshire: Puritan Press, 1999 Reference KF 3841 G85 “As law students, we have found that although more resources are available and more people are involved that the case just a few years ago, locating the resource or the person we need in a particular situation remains difficult. The Guide to Animal Law Resources represents our attempt to collect in one place some of the resources a legal professional, law professor or law student might want and have a hard time finding.” Guide includes citations to organizations and internships, animal law court cases, a bibliography, law schools where animal law courses are taught, Internet resources, conferences and lawyers devoted to the cause. The International Institute for Animal Law A Bibliography of Animal Law Resources Chicago, Illinois: The International Institute for Animal Law, 2001 KF 3841 A1 B53 Kistler, John M. Animal Rights: A Subject Guide, Bibliography, and Internet Companion Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 2000 HV 4708 K57 Bibliography divided into six subject areas: Animal Rights: General Works, Animal Natures, Fatal Uses of Animals, Nonfatal Uses of Animals, Animal Populations, and Animal Speculations.
    [Show full text]