This document discusses the philosophical and ethical perspectives on veganism and animal rights over time. It covers views from Aristotle saying animals exist for human use to modern philosophers like Peter Singer arguing for equal consideration of interests and against speciesism. It also discusses care-based feminist perspectives and the idea that relationships not reason should determine moral status. Overall it traces the development of thinking around animal ethics and underpinnings of the modern animal rights and vegan movements.
This collection of articles has been compiled by Animal Rights Advocates Inc. (ARA) to provide a guide for activists interested in the links between animal rights and other social justice movements and challenging their own oppressive behaviour.
This document discusses the ideas of utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer regarding speciesism and the equal consideration of interests between humans and nonhuman animals. Singer believes that similar to racism and sexism, speciesism is morally wrong as it involves an unjustified bias in favor of one's own species. All beings that can experience pain and suffering, regardless of species, deserve equal consideration. Therefore, causing harm to animals for the sake of human interests like food or entertainment when it is not necessary cannot be justified if the harm to animals outweighs the benefit to humans.
This collection of articles has been compiled by Animal Rights Advocates Inc. (ARA) to provide an abolitionist critique of animal welfare approaches in animal advocacy.
This collection of articles has been compiled by Animal Rights Advocates Inc. (ARA) to provide an accessible introduction to the philosophy of abolitionist animal rights for activists.
The document discusses the history and modern state of the animal rights movement. It notes that ancient philosophers like Pythagoras and Aristotle debated the moral status of animals. Modern animal rights philosophy emerged in the 1970s led by thinkers like Peter Singer, Tom Regan, and Gary Francione. While laws now prevent cruelty, animals are still considered property without full rights under the law. Major advocacy groups like PETA argue animals should not be used for food, clothing, experiments or entertainment.
Peter Singer - Non-Human Animal Ethics - EA Global Melbourne 2015Adam Ford
Peter Singer discusses moral value of non-human animals - the history of moral progress around equality of human animals and how we ought to treat animals - from Judaism & Christianity to Aristotle to Bentham (father of modern utilitarianism). Singer highlights Benthan's view that the capacity for suffering/joy is the vital characteristic that entitles a being to moral consideration. He discusses why we should take non-human animal suffering seriously and what we can do to alleviate the suffering of non-human animals.
Animal Liberation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Liberation_%28book%29
Peter paper 'SPECIESISM AND MORAL STATUS' where he convincingly rejects Speciesism: http://www.oswego.edu/~delancey/Singer.pdf
Abstract: "Many people believe that all human life is of equal value. Most of them also believe that all human beings have a moral status superior to that of nonhuman animals. But how are these beliefs to be defended? The mere difference of species cannot in itself determine moral status. The most obvious candidate for regarding human beings as having a higher moral status than animals is the superior cognitive capacity of humans. People with profound mental retardation pose a problem for this set of beliefs, because their cognitive capacities are not superior to those of many animals. I argue that we should drop the belief in the equal value of human life, replacing it with a graduated view that applies to animals as well as to humans."
Plato.Stanford Entry on Moral Status of Animals: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-animal/
Biography: Peter Singer is Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics in the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University, a position that he now combines with the position of Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne. His books include Animal Liberation, Practical Ethics, The Life You Can Save, The Point of View of the Universe and The Most Good You Can Do. In 2014 the Gottlieb Duttweiler Institute ranked him third on its list of Global Thought Leaders, and Time has included him among the world’s 100 most influential people. An Australian, in 2012 he was made a Companion to the Order of Australia, his country’s highest civilian honour.
Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgRoZVT6kYc
This document is an introduction to the Animal Rights Frequently Asked Questions (AR FAQ) text. It was created through collaboration of various authors and is intended to provide information about and advocate for the animal rights movement. It discusses some of the common justifications offered against animal rights and attempts to address them. The FAQ contains 96 questions in total about animal rights issues.
This document is a student essay titled "Do Animals Have Rights?" by ADELEKE SAHEED IDOWU for the course Philosophical Issues in Development at Federal University, Oye-Ekiti. The essay explores arguments for and against recognizing rights for animals. It discusses whether animals have rights to life, liberty, and freedom from torture based on their ability to experience pain and suffering. While some philosophers argue animals cannot have rights due to a lack of rationality and self-awareness, others believe animals deserve protection from cruelty and mistreatment. The essay concludes that there is no consensus on this issue and reasonable people can disagree on what protections, if any, should be afforded to animals.
This collection of articles has been compiled by Animal Rights Advocates Inc. (ARA) to provide a guide for activists interested in the links between animal rights and other social justice movements and challenging their own oppressive behaviour.
This document discusses the ideas of utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer regarding speciesism and the equal consideration of interests between humans and nonhuman animals. Singer believes that similar to racism and sexism, speciesism is morally wrong as it involves an unjustified bias in favor of one's own species. All beings that can experience pain and suffering, regardless of species, deserve equal consideration. Therefore, causing harm to animals for the sake of human interests like food or entertainment when it is not necessary cannot be justified if the harm to animals outweighs the benefit to humans.
This collection of articles has been compiled by Animal Rights Advocates Inc. (ARA) to provide an abolitionist critique of animal welfare approaches in animal advocacy.
This collection of articles has been compiled by Animal Rights Advocates Inc. (ARA) to provide an accessible introduction to the philosophy of abolitionist animal rights for activists.
The document discusses the history and modern state of the animal rights movement. It notes that ancient philosophers like Pythagoras and Aristotle debated the moral status of animals. Modern animal rights philosophy emerged in the 1970s led by thinkers like Peter Singer, Tom Regan, and Gary Francione. While laws now prevent cruelty, animals are still considered property without full rights under the law. Major advocacy groups like PETA argue animals should not be used for food, clothing, experiments or entertainment.
Peter Singer - Non-Human Animal Ethics - EA Global Melbourne 2015Adam Ford
Peter Singer discusses moral value of non-human animals - the history of moral progress around equality of human animals and how we ought to treat animals - from Judaism & Christianity to Aristotle to Bentham (father of modern utilitarianism). Singer highlights Benthan's view that the capacity for suffering/joy is the vital characteristic that entitles a being to moral consideration. He discusses why we should take non-human animal suffering seriously and what we can do to alleviate the suffering of non-human animals.
Animal Liberation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Liberation_%28book%29
Peter paper 'SPECIESISM AND MORAL STATUS' where he convincingly rejects Speciesism: http://www.oswego.edu/~delancey/Singer.pdf
Abstract: "Many people believe that all human life is of equal value. Most of them also believe that all human beings have a moral status superior to that of nonhuman animals. But how are these beliefs to be defended? The mere difference of species cannot in itself determine moral status. The most obvious candidate for regarding human beings as having a higher moral status than animals is the superior cognitive capacity of humans. People with profound mental retardation pose a problem for this set of beliefs, because their cognitive capacities are not superior to those of many animals. I argue that we should drop the belief in the equal value of human life, replacing it with a graduated view that applies to animals as well as to humans."
Plato.Stanford Entry on Moral Status of Animals: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-animal/
Biography: Peter Singer is Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics in the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University, a position that he now combines with the position of Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne. His books include Animal Liberation, Practical Ethics, The Life You Can Save, The Point of View of the Universe and The Most Good You Can Do. In 2014 the Gottlieb Duttweiler Institute ranked him third on its list of Global Thought Leaders, and Time has included him among the world’s 100 most influential people. An Australian, in 2012 he was made a Companion to the Order of Australia, his country’s highest civilian honour.
Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgRoZVT6kYc
This document is an introduction to the Animal Rights Frequently Asked Questions (AR FAQ) text. It was created through collaboration of various authors and is intended to provide information about and advocate for the animal rights movement. It discusses some of the common justifications offered against animal rights and attempts to address them. The FAQ contains 96 questions in total about animal rights issues.
This document is a student essay titled "Do Animals Have Rights?" by ADELEKE SAHEED IDOWU for the course Philosophical Issues in Development at Federal University, Oye-Ekiti. The essay explores arguments for and against recognizing rights for animals. It discusses whether animals have rights to life, liberty, and freedom from torture based on their ability to experience pain and suffering. While some philosophers argue animals cannot have rights due to a lack of rationality and self-awareness, others believe animals deserve protection from cruelty and mistreatment. The essay concludes that there is no consensus on this issue and reasonable people can disagree on what protections, if any, should be afforded to animals.
1. The document discusses the concepts of relative and absolute poverty. Relative poverty refers to poverty in industrialized nations where basic needs are met, while absolute poverty refers to extreme poverty in developing countries where basic needs are not met.
2. Singer argues that extreme poverty is a "moral equivalent of murder" because it leads to avoidable deaths, though others disagree due to differences in motivation, duties, outcomes, and identifiable victims and perpetrators.
3. Singer presents an argument that if we can prevent something bad without comparable cost, we ought to do it. He argues this means we have an obligation to prevent some absolute poverty. However, others object based on
This document summarizes a lecture on speciesism and the oppression of nonhuman animals from various perspectives. It discusses views from philosophers like Singer, Regan, and Ryder regarding animal welfare and animal rights. Singer advocates for utilitarianism and equal consideration of interests regardless of species. Regan argues for deontological animal rights based on animals as "subjects-of-a-life". The lecture also covers criticisms of welfare and rights views as maintaining a moral hierarchy between humans and other animals.
This document discusses arguments for and against animal rights. It provides statistics that over 50 billion land animals are killed annually for food production. Arguments for animal rights include that animals can feel pain and have basic cognitive abilities, while arguments against include that animals were created to serve human needs and cannot behave morally. The document also outlines different religious views on animals and some solutions that have been proposed to address animal welfare like laws and international agreements.
This document summarizes an essay by Steven Best that argues for greater cooperation between the animal liberation movement and the political left. It provides background on the animal advocacy movement, including its origins in animal welfare and the emergence of animal rights and liberation philosophies. Best asserts that human and animal liberation are interrelated and the left could benefit from engaging with animal rights perspectives in working to end all forms of hierarchy, domination, and environmental destruction.
Environmental ethics considers extending traditional ethics from solely including humans to also include the non-human world. It influences many disciplines and examines ethical decisions regarding issues like deforestation, population growth, vehicle emissions, consumption patterns, and obligations to future generations. There are differing views on what has moral standing - whether it includes only humans, all sentient beings, all life, or entire ecosystems. Views also differ on humanity's relationship with nature and duties regarding environmental protection.
Spc2023 animal rights informative speech presentationBrooke Johnson
This document discusses animal rights and provides context on its history and philosophical underpinnings. It defines animal rights as the rights of animals to live free from human exploitation and abuse. The document traces the history of animal rights back through pre-history but notes it did not become a major social issue until the 1970s. It explores philosophical arguments around utilitarianism and rights views. The document also notes common myths and misconceptions around laws regarding animal welfare, endangered species protections, and humane slaughter practices.
This document discusses whether animals have rights and argues that they should. It contends that animals have a capacity to suffer, just as humans do, and therefore deserve rights to protect them from suffering. While animals currently have no legal rights, the document asserts that their enslavement and murder by humans stems from the same prejudice and ignorance that justified slavery. In the future, it suggests animals may gain emancipation from their status as human property, just as slavery was abolished. The document concludes by stating animals should be left alone to live freely in designated areas, rather than having rights granted to them by humans.
The document summarizes the abolitionist theory of animal rights, which advocates ending the use and ownership of animals. It argues that animals have basic rights as sentient beings not to be treated as property. Welfare reforms do not truly protect animal interests because they do not change the property status that allows exploitation. Only by abolishing animal use through veganism can their rights be respected. The theory draws parallels with past movements like abolitionism that sought to end oppression by recognizing the basic rights of the oppressed.
This document discusses human nature from an Indo-Eastern perspective across several philosophies. It describes the Vedantic view that the core of human beings is Brahman, or pure consciousness and bliss. The Jain perspective emphasizes non-violence and the Buddhist view focuses on the four noble truths about suffering and its cessation. Sufism aims to help individuals realize their true nature and experience the divine spark within through spiritual practices and teachings.
A presentation from a forum organised by Animal Rights Advocates Inc. on the intersections of environmentalism and animal rights - where they converge and where they conflict and how we can move both forward ethically and responsibly.
This document discusses arguments for and against animal rights. It notes that a debate forum questioned whether animals should have rights. The main arguments were that humans are animals so they should have rights, but others counter that animals do not contribute to society. The document also discusses types of animal cruelty like dog fighting and cock fighting and how cruelty affects animal rights. It provides definitions for ethical farms and differences between forms of animal cruelty. Overall it presents both sides of the debate around animal rights and welfare.
Christians have differing views on animal rights. Some believe humans can use animals for food and experiments as God gave humans dominion over animals. Others argue animals have rights as God's creatures and humans should show kindness to all. Muslims believe humans should not be cruel to animals and those used for food must be slaughtered humanely. They also believe animals can be used for food and medical experiments that help humankind, as the Quran teaches animals are part of God's creation.
This document summarizes Peter Singer's arguments against speciesism and for animal rights. It notes that while Eastern religions consider all living things, Western religions do not view harming animals as inherently wrong. Current animal cruelty laws are based on the assumption that animals are property and lower than humans. However, qualities like intelligence or skin color are not reasons for unequal treatment among humans. If capacity to suffer is the standard for moral consideration, then this would include non-human animals like mice but exclude things like stones. While animals should not necessarily have all the same rights as humans, inflicting pain on them that causes equal suffering is wrong. The document raises issues like killing animals, using them in research, and eating them as food. It
1) Ethological theory views instinctive behavior as consisting of three stages: the drive stage where an instinct is triggered, the appetitive stage where the organism searches for the goal, and the consummatory stage where the behavior is completed and the drive is satisfied.
2) Key scholars in this theory were Lorenz, Tinbergen, and Von Frisch who studied behavior in natural settings and observed species-specific, fixed action patterns that had survival value.
3) Instincts are unlearned behaviors released by specific stimuli and have characteristics like being species-specific and having a drive component that needs periodic release.
Animal rights activists believe that animals should not be exploited or considered property. They maintain that animals experience suffering and have basic interests that should be respected, just as human interests are. Historically, some ancient societies, like ancient Greece, respected animals more than later interpretations of texts like Genesis that implied human dominion over animals. Animal rights activists argue against practices like modern industrial farming, animal experimentation, hunting, and zoos, believing they cause unnecessary animal suffering.
There are four dimensions of dualism according to different philosophers:
1) Bertrand Russell proposed that primitive humans saw a distinction between humans/animals that could move themselves and inanimate objects that could not. They also saw humans as superior to animals in tool use and morality.
2) Sigmund Freud proposed that dreams show a separation of soul from body, with the soul moving freely in dreams while the body is still. This led to the concepts of soul and body being distinct.
3) Plato proposed that humans perceive an imperfect reality distinct from the true reality, and that perceptions lead to reasoning and ideas, creating two worlds of perceptions and ideas.
4) Aristotle proposed all living things have a distinct mortal
The document summarizes the four dimensions of dualism according to different philosophers:
1. Bertrand Russell's dimension saw primitive men distinguishing between animate objects that could move themselves (humans and animals) and inanimate objects that could not.
2. Murphy's dimension saw dreams as the soul separating from the body, influencing personality development.
3. Plato's dimension saw two worlds - the real world and individuals' perceived worlds based on their unique perceptions. Perception leads to reasoning and ideas.
4. Aristotle's dimension saw all living things composed of a mortal body and immortal soul/mind that survives death. The soul has three grades: vegetative, sensitive, and rational.
Altruism in animals and classification : A viewKuldeep Gauliya
This document discusses different types of altruism seen in animals, including intra-species altruism between members of the same species, inter-species altruism between different species, and reciprocal altruism where the receiver of benefits later returns the favor. Direct altruism mechanisms like feeding, protection, and guarding provide immediate benefits to receivers. Indirect mechanisms like alarming warn others of danger but attract predators, reducing the altruist's own chances of survival. Overall, altruism is rarely observed in nature but can evolve through mechanisms like kin selection and reciprocal altruism.
The following is a documentation of animal welfare and how animal welfare can affect human lives. The documentation also includes case studies which correspond to the development of an animal care center in Qatar.
This document discusses several approaches to animal rights and environmental ethics. It outlines Judeo-Christian and philosophical traditions that traditionally exclude animals from having rights. It also discusses utilitarian views from Peter Singer that argue we have moral obligations to minimize animal suffering, and Kantian views from Tom Regan that argue animals deserve respect and dignity. The document defines speciesism and discusses arguments for and against using animals in biomedical research from perspectives of Singer, Regan, and Carl Cohen. It also discusses holistic versus individualist approaches to environmental ethics.
This document discusses the oppression and domination of non-human animals. It argues that animals have rights that should be respected and they should not be subjected to abuse. It notes that psychological research often uses animals but they are cared for under ethical guidelines. The document examines various perspectives on animal rights and discusses how some human cultures involve practices that kill or mistreat animals, such as animal sacrifices or raising animals for food under inhumane conditions. It concludes that all sentient beings should be treated equally without discrimination, oppression or exploitation.
1. The document discusses the concepts of relative and absolute poverty. Relative poverty refers to poverty in industrialized nations where basic needs are met, while absolute poverty refers to extreme poverty in developing countries where basic needs are not met.
2. Singer argues that extreme poverty is a "moral equivalent of murder" because it leads to avoidable deaths, though others disagree due to differences in motivation, duties, outcomes, and identifiable victims and perpetrators.
3. Singer presents an argument that if we can prevent something bad without comparable cost, we ought to do it. He argues this means we have an obligation to prevent some absolute poverty. However, others object based on
This document summarizes a lecture on speciesism and the oppression of nonhuman animals from various perspectives. It discusses views from philosophers like Singer, Regan, and Ryder regarding animal welfare and animal rights. Singer advocates for utilitarianism and equal consideration of interests regardless of species. Regan argues for deontological animal rights based on animals as "subjects-of-a-life". The lecture also covers criticisms of welfare and rights views as maintaining a moral hierarchy between humans and other animals.
This document discusses arguments for and against animal rights. It provides statistics that over 50 billion land animals are killed annually for food production. Arguments for animal rights include that animals can feel pain and have basic cognitive abilities, while arguments against include that animals were created to serve human needs and cannot behave morally. The document also outlines different religious views on animals and some solutions that have been proposed to address animal welfare like laws and international agreements.
This document summarizes an essay by Steven Best that argues for greater cooperation between the animal liberation movement and the political left. It provides background on the animal advocacy movement, including its origins in animal welfare and the emergence of animal rights and liberation philosophies. Best asserts that human and animal liberation are interrelated and the left could benefit from engaging with animal rights perspectives in working to end all forms of hierarchy, domination, and environmental destruction.
Environmental ethics considers extending traditional ethics from solely including humans to also include the non-human world. It influences many disciplines and examines ethical decisions regarding issues like deforestation, population growth, vehicle emissions, consumption patterns, and obligations to future generations. There are differing views on what has moral standing - whether it includes only humans, all sentient beings, all life, or entire ecosystems. Views also differ on humanity's relationship with nature and duties regarding environmental protection.
Spc2023 animal rights informative speech presentationBrooke Johnson
This document discusses animal rights and provides context on its history and philosophical underpinnings. It defines animal rights as the rights of animals to live free from human exploitation and abuse. The document traces the history of animal rights back through pre-history but notes it did not become a major social issue until the 1970s. It explores philosophical arguments around utilitarianism and rights views. The document also notes common myths and misconceptions around laws regarding animal welfare, endangered species protections, and humane slaughter practices.
This document discusses whether animals have rights and argues that they should. It contends that animals have a capacity to suffer, just as humans do, and therefore deserve rights to protect them from suffering. While animals currently have no legal rights, the document asserts that their enslavement and murder by humans stems from the same prejudice and ignorance that justified slavery. In the future, it suggests animals may gain emancipation from their status as human property, just as slavery was abolished. The document concludes by stating animals should be left alone to live freely in designated areas, rather than having rights granted to them by humans.
The document summarizes the abolitionist theory of animal rights, which advocates ending the use and ownership of animals. It argues that animals have basic rights as sentient beings not to be treated as property. Welfare reforms do not truly protect animal interests because they do not change the property status that allows exploitation. Only by abolishing animal use through veganism can their rights be respected. The theory draws parallels with past movements like abolitionism that sought to end oppression by recognizing the basic rights of the oppressed.
This document discusses human nature from an Indo-Eastern perspective across several philosophies. It describes the Vedantic view that the core of human beings is Brahman, or pure consciousness and bliss. The Jain perspective emphasizes non-violence and the Buddhist view focuses on the four noble truths about suffering and its cessation. Sufism aims to help individuals realize their true nature and experience the divine spark within through spiritual practices and teachings.
A presentation from a forum organised by Animal Rights Advocates Inc. on the intersections of environmentalism and animal rights - where they converge and where they conflict and how we can move both forward ethically and responsibly.
This document discusses arguments for and against animal rights. It notes that a debate forum questioned whether animals should have rights. The main arguments were that humans are animals so they should have rights, but others counter that animals do not contribute to society. The document also discusses types of animal cruelty like dog fighting and cock fighting and how cruelty affects animal rights. It provides definitions for ethical farms and differences between forms of animal cruelty. Overall it presents both sides of the debate around animal rights and welfare.
Christians have differing views on animal rights. Some believe humans can use animals for food and experiments as God gave humans dominion over animals. Others argue animals have rights as God's creatures and humans should show kindness to all. Muslims believe humans should not be cruel to animals and those used for food must be slaughtered humanely. They also believe animals can be used for food and medical experiments that help humankind, as the Quran teaches animals are part of God's creation.
This document summarizes Peter Singer's arguments against speciesism and for animal rights. It notes that while Eastern religions consider all living things, Western religions do not view harming animals as inherently wrong. Current animal cruelty laws are based on the assumption that animals are property and lower than humans. However, qualities like intelligence or skin color are not reasons for unequal treatment among humans. If capacity to suffer is the standard for moral consideration, then this would include non-human animals like mice but exclude things like stones. While animals should not necessarily have all the same rights as humans, inflicting pain on them that causes equal suffering is wrong. The document raises issues like killing animals, using them in research, and eating them as food. It
1) Ethological theory views instinctive behavior as consisting of three stages: the drive stage where an instinct is triggered, the appetitive stage where the organism searches for the goal, and the consummatory stage where the behavior is completed and the drive is satisfied.
2) Key scholars in this theory were Lorenz, Tinbergen, and Von Frisch who studied behavior in natural settings and observed species-specific, fixed action patterns that had survival value.
3) Instincts are unlearned behaviors released by specific stimuli and have characteristics like being species-specific and having a drive component that needs periodic release.
Animal rights activists believe that animals should not be exploited or considered property. They maintain that animals experience suffering and have basic interests that should be respected, just as human interests are. Historically, some ancient societies, like ancient Greece, respected animals more than later interpretations of texts like Genesis that implied human dominion over animals. Animal rights activists argue against practices like modern industrial farming, animal experimentation, hunting, and zoos, believing they cause unnecessary animal suffering.
There are four dimensions of dualism according to different philosophers:
1) Bertrand Russell proposed that primitive humans saw a distinction between humans/animals that could move themselves and inanimate objects that could not. They also saw humans as superior to animals in tool use and morality.
2) Sigmund Freud proposed that dreams show a separation of soul from body, with the soul moving freely in dreams while the body is still. This led to the concepts of soul and body being distinct.
3) Plato proposed that humans perceive an imperfect reality distinct from the true reality, and that perceptions lead to reasoning and ideas, creating two worlds of perceptions and ideas.
4) Aristotle proposed all living things have a distinct mortal
The document summarizes the four dimensions of dualism according to different philosophers:
1. Bertrand Russell's dimension saw primitive men distinguishing between animate objects that could move themselves (humans and animals) and inanimate objects that could not.
2. Murphy's dimension saw dreams as the soul separating from the body, influencing personality development.
3. Plato's dimension saw two worlds - the real world and individuals' perceived worlds based on their unique perceptions. Perception leads to reasoning and ideas.
4. Aristotle's dimension saw all living things composed of a mortal body and immortal soul/mind that survives death. The soul has three grades: vegetative, sensitive, and rational.
Altruism in animals and classification : A viewKuldeep Gauliya
This document discusses different types of altruism seen in animals, including intra-species altruism between members of the same species, inter-species altruism between different species, and reciprocal altruism where the receiver of benefits later returns the favor. Direct altruism mechanisms like feeding, protection, and guarding provide immediate benefits to receivers. Indirect mechanisms like alarming warn others of danger but attract predators, reducing the altruist's own chances of survival. Overall, altruism is rarely observed in nature but can evolve through mechanisms like kin selection and reciprocal altruism.
The following is a documentation of animal welfare and how animal welfare can affect human lives. The documentation also includes case studies which correspond to the development of an animal care center in Qatar.
This document discusses several approaches to animal rights and environmental ethics. It outlines Judeo-Christian and philosophical traditions that traditionally exclude animals from having rights. It also discusses utilitarian views from Peter Singer that argue we have moral obligations to minimize animal suffering, and Kantian views from Tom Regan that argue animals deserve respect and dignity. The document defines speciesism and discusses arguments for and against using animals in biomedical research from perspectives of Singer, Regan, and Carl Cohen. It also discusses holistic versus individualist approaches to environmental ethics.
This document discusses the oppression and domination of non-human animals. It argues that animals have rights that should be respected and they should not be subjected to abuse. It notes that psychological research often uses animals but they are cared for under ethical guidelines. The document examines various perspectives on animal rights and discusses how some human cultures involve practices that kill or mistreat animals, such as animal sacrifices or raising animals for food under inhumane conditions. It concludes that all sentient beings should be treated equally without discrimination, oppression or exploitation.
Screaming Chicken's theory of animal rights. I'd love to hear your comments, problems with the presentation watever! Thanks!
"This presentation address’s just a couple of the reasons regarding the theories around animal rights, and in no way represents a absolute argument for the rights of animals. There are many other compelling reasons to convert to a plant based diet, what follows is simply one of those reasons."
The document discusses the author's views on animal rights. The author believes that animals do not have rights and are meant to serve humans. They argue that animals cannot speak for themselves and are sub-creatures designed to accommodate human needs. The author also states that eating meat is natural and necessary, and that animals see humans as food.
Running head: ANIMAL RIGHTS PROPOSAL 1
ANIMAL RIGHTS PROPOSAL 4
Unit III Animal Rights Proposal
Cynthia Fisher
Columbia Southern University
1/29/17
Animal Rights Proposal
Section 1: Animal Rights
Non-human animals have rights and ought to be treated just like normal human beings of moral concern (Rowlands, 2016). Animal rights is the ides that a few, or all, non-human animals have the right to possess their own lives and thus there basic interest ought to be managed an indistinguishable thought from comparative interests of human beings. Some of the animal’s basic interest is the right or need to avoid suffering. Animals are living beings, they contribute to the balancing of ecological system, and therefore, human beings have the responsibility to refrain from harming them but instead protect them. According to Cochrane (2012), if these needs or obligations are not satisfied, there will be no moral action on the side of human beings.
Section 2: Controversy Behind animal Rights
The controversy over animal rights is a standout amongst the most antagonistic in the field of morality and ethics. Most people ask the same question: “Do animals share a comparative consciousness with humans?” This epistemological issue has no exact answer (Hearne 1991). For sure, no one understands what goes on in an animal mind. They may at the same time share some traits with human beings. As Sunstein (2003) claims, many individuals trust that animals do not have rights, and the general populations who bolster animal rights are liberals who need to discover different outlets for their persuasions. Others feel it is our ethical commitment to nurture animals as they cannot act or talk themselves.
Animals clearly should experience their lives free from exploitation and misery. One may contend that it is the human's capacity to reason that differentiates us from animals. As Korsgaard (2012) indicates, the fact that we reason makes us unrivaled. While it cannot be decisively proven that animals cannot reason, we just have to assume that they cannot for the moment. Birds can fly while human beings cannot. The fact that birds can fly while human being cannot does not make animals superior. Contingent upon what traits human beings concentrate on, all species can be viewed as superior in some way. However, these differences are insignificant when choosing which species get which rights (Regan 1980). Human beings are mammals, we are animals, just like other animals. We have a sense for survival. We have to eat and rest when it is necessary. Therefore, we have a central nervous system and as a result, we feel pain and suffering and so do animals.
We as human beings do take other species to extremes, making new species through farming and domestication, invading ...
Animal Rights
Animal Rights and Ethics Essay
Essay on Nonhuman Animal Rights
Essay on Animals Have Rights Too
Animal Rights And Human Rights
Essay On Animal Rights
Essay on Zoos and Animal Rights
Essay about Animal Rights
Essay on Animal Rights
Argumentative Essay On Animal Rights
Argument For Animal Rights
Essay on Animal Rights
Argumentative Essay On Animal Rights
Argumentative Essay On Animal Rights
Essay on Animals’ Rights?
My Views on Animal Rights
Argument for Animal Rights Essay
Animal Rights And Human Rights
Persuasive Speech On Animal Rights
Essay on ANIMAL RIGHTS
This document summarizes an argumentative essay on animal rights. It introduces the topic and notes that ancient philosophers debated how humans treat animals. It then provides statistics on the number of animals used and killed in experiments each year. The essay discusses different perspectives in the animal protection movement and focuses on animal rights. It presents arguments that animals have feelings and emotions similar to humans, so they deserve rights. It also discusses perspectives from Descartes and Darwin about animal cognition and emotions.
The document discusses arguments for and against recognizing rights for non-human entities. It explores the concept of speciesism and whether human beings are morally superior to other species. Several philosophers are cited who argue that if an entity can experience suffering, then we have a duty to consider their interests and value their lives, regardless of their intelligence or utility to humans. Debates around animal welfare, environmental protection and our relationship with the natural world are discussed through a rights-based framework.
Running head ANIMAL RIGHTS LITERATURE REVIEWANIMAL RIGHTS LITER.docxSUBHI7
Running head: ANIMAL RIGHTS LITERATURE REVIEW
ANIMAL RIGHTS LITERATURE REVIEW 2
Introduction
Animal rights movement advocates for animal’s wellbeing, free from pain, cruelty and abuse as they are living beings and they have the right to live in liberty. Abuse of animals has become a major issue worldwide therefore becoming a problem that can be solved only through obtaining a clear comprehension of what the rights entail. Animal rights as a movement challenges the society’s old view that all animals only exist for human use like in experimentation and agriculture (Sunstein 388). Despite the comprehension of what animal rights entail, it is crucial for individuals to understand the potential causes of animal abuse. While those who display these practices of viciousness and disregard towards animals must be dissected and, if vital, liberatingly analyzed, they should likewise be considered responsible for their activities, which is done by specific laws and controls that endeavor to forestall animal cruelty. This way, the harmful effects of animal abuse is lessened and stopped.
Many individuals trust that animals do not have rights, and that the general populations who support animal rights are liberals who need to discover different channels for their persuasions while others feel it is our ethical commitment to nurture animals as they cannot act or talk for themselves. Protecting animals is, imperative for some reasons, including the help they provide for plant ecosystems, the emotional and psychological bolster they can offer to people, and the knowledge picked up from the sociological studies of them and therefore they have the right to experience their lives free from exploitation and misery. We as human beings however do take speciesism to extremes, making new species through farming and domestication, invading most climates and environments, and utilizing our intelligence to expand or sort term gains at the detriment of long-term sustainability. Animals have rights to live free of pain, abuse and suffering.
Literature Review
The fight against animal brutality, the advocacy of animal rights and the welfare of animals has occurred to some degree over the span of history. It's vital to comprehend that owning animals as property to be eaten or killed is the defining core of our consciousness, and that every human being is routinely indoctrinated into the attitude of control, reductionism, avoidance, elitism, and disconnectedness required by the sustenance practices of our culture (Cochrane 37). This review discusses the existing literature in regard to animal rights. The section contains history, terminology and the pros and cons of the controversies involved in animal rights.
All around the world the “animal research controversy” is capturing community attention by storm. Many are the individuals who emphasize on different con ...
The document discusses animal welfare and humanity's treatment of animals. It argues that animals experience feelings like stress and pain, and their environments should meet their needs and allow natural behaviors. However, humans have long exploited and been cruel to animals. It notes how some thinkers in the past argued animals don't matter morally since they can't reason. But now animal welfare is an academic subject, and research shows cruelty to animals can indicate a tendency towards criminal acts and societal harm. The document concludes all beings deserve humane treatment and that a society's treatment of vulnerable groups, like animals, reflects its overall morality.
Lord Cheezus Spends a Week with RebeccaRoger Yates
This document discusses a vegan festival in Dublin where cheese was needed to save the day. It references odd creatures being met at the festival and one superstar who was supervising servants and stepping in to save the day by providing cheese when it was needed.
Pro intersectional veganism and what it means to grassrootsRoger Yates
This document discusses the concept of pro-intersectional veganism and what it means for grassroots vegan activists. It argues that vegan activism should consider all forms of oppression and acknowledge privileges. It provides six principles for intersectional veganism: 1) question all hierarchies, 2) be a respectful ally, 3) show solidarity with all oppressed groups, 4) think critically about privileges, 5) be aware of all forms of violence, and 6) recognize that the pursuit of justice is limitless.
Intro to the Controversial Idea of Animal RightsRoger Yates
This document discusses VegFest Bristol 2016 and several academics and advocates in the animal rights movement. It mentions that Roger Yates spoke at VegFest Bristol 2016. It then lists the academic backgrounds and areas of study for Yates and several other advocates, including Tom Regan, Joan Dunayer, and Gary Francione. It also references the work of Henry Shue on basic and non-basic rights. The document ends by stating that the names of social movements are important as they are "claims-makers".
Setting up and Running a Vegan Gazebo StallRoger Yates
Setting up and running a vegan information point at VegFest Bristol 2016. The summary discusses using a single gazebo stall with conversations, sandwiches, leaflets and posters to engage the community. It also mentions using a double gazebo except one, with video booths playing DVDs, display boards featuring books, and an anarchist t-shirt store to spread the vegan message directly to people without relying on mass media. Logistical issues discussed include permissions, insurance, transportation and staffing.
This document discusses veganism as a philosophy of justice and nonviolence towards all beings. It summarizes that veganism was founded in 1944 as a social movement promoting peace and the moral evolution of humanity by moving away from violence against and use of other animals. The document outlines how veganism opposes oppression and rights violations based on any attribute such as species, gender, race, etc. It discusses how animal agriculture negatively impacts both human rights and health as well as environmental sustainability, and how a vegan world could help address issues of food security and climate change. The document promotes veganism as the moral baseline of animal rights and advocates for an intersectional approach to understanding and solving interconnected systems of oppression.
This document discusses how children are taught to be kind to animals but then grow up participating in practices that contradict those teachings, like eating meat. It references the work of Professor Sapon, who argues that adults deliberately mislead children and each other about the treatment of animals in agriculture. Children are raised seeing animals as friends but then undergo "behavioral reconditioning" as they grow older to view animals as objects for human use. The document criticizes children's books that portray happy farms with smiling animals but do not show the reality of slaughter. It questions how humans can claim to love animals while using and killing them.
The Vegan Information Van Appeal feat. Mrs. DoyleRoger Yates
The Vegan Information Project is raising funds for an outreach van to promote veganism. They aim to educate the public about animal rights and environmental issues through discussions and distributing informational materials from the van. Their goal is to raise £10,000 by July 2023 to purchase and convert a van for their educational outreach efforts.
The document discusses a new product launch for a company. It outlines key details of the product, including its features and target customers. It also provides a timeline for rolling out marketing and launching the product nationally over the next 6 months.
Presentation for Vegan Information ProjectRoger Yates
The document discusses different approaches to determining an animal's moral status, including whether it is based on an animal's capacities or its relations to humans. It summarizes Todd May's view that moral status can be grounded in either capacities (CBRs) or relations (RBRs). Wittgensteinian relationists like Cora Diamond believe moral relations to animals are derivative of human relations, while assistance relationists argue animals have a claim to non-harm based on relationships with humans. The document also discusses views that emphasize sentience over capacities and the potential for a modified approach incorporating both sentience-based reasons and relation-based reasons for moral consideration of animals.
Challenging racism and ableism within the animal liberation movement and figh...Roger Yates
This document discusses challenging racism, ableism, and oppression within the animal liberation movement and advocating for total liberation. It addresses issues such as eugenics, medical experiments, imprisonment of disabled people, and capitalism reinforcing social norms. It calls for moving beyond individualism and opposing domination, while acknowledging some within the movement have promoted oppressive views. The goal is a movement working to end all forms of oppression and violence against all beings.
The social movement countermovement dialectic (revisited)Roger Yates
Power Point presentation given during Vegan Information Project's "mini-course," Social Movements with Case Studies about Animal Advocacy which runs into 2014 after beginning during World Vegan Month (November) 2013
Vip’s mini course on social movements with case studies lecture and workshopRoger Yates
Presentation for the Vegan Information Project's "mini-course" on Social Movements with Case Studies about Animal Advocacy. This session was the second on the relationship between social movements and their counter-movements.
The document discusses the social movement of degrowth and economic downsizing in Italy. It argues that GDP is a flawed metric that does not account for social and environmental factors. Countries like Bhutan have adopted measures like gross national happiness. Degrowth calls for societies with sustainable, localized economies and equitable resource distribution. It promotes simpler, less consumptive lifestyles focused on community and self-sufficiency through activities like time banks, gardening, and homemade goods.
This document discusses theories around social movements from the early 20th century through the 1960s-70s. It outlines how early theorists viewed movements as irrational responses to individual discontent rather than rational collective action. It then discusses how the social movements of the 1960s challenged these views, leading theorists to recognize movements as pursuing rational collective interests through organized political action. The document examines how these shifts helped establish social movement theory as a distinct field of study.
This document summarizes key points from a presentation by Dr. Roger Yates on sociology and animal use. Zygmunt Bauman's sociological perspective is discussed, specifically how living in society means living interdependently with others in complex webs of social relationships. Common sense understandings become ingrained through routine and familiarity, shaping attitudes. While individuals have more freedom as they age, groups still exert power over members through socializing them and making change difficult due to unlearning the past and the ease of conformity.
Vip mini course social movements 2013 sess 2Roger Yates
This document provides an overview of a mini-course on social movements. It discusses early theories of collective behavior that viewed social movements as irrational outbreaks that could be cured by social support. It then outlines how later theorists started to view social movements as rational political entities worthy of analysis in their own right. The document also examines how resource mobilization theory explores how social movement organizations secure support, channel efforts, and handle recruitment and control to further their goals.
"Understanding Social Movements with Case Studies about Vegan Animal Advocacy...Roger Yates
The Vegan Information Project presented an Informal lecture/workshop on "Understanding Social Movements with Case Studies about Vegan Animal Advocacy" by Dr. Roger Yates, at The Outhouse, Dublin, 11th November, 2013.
This is part of VIP's World Vegan Month programme of events.
it describes the bony anatomy including the femoral head , acetabulum, labrum . also discusses the capsule , ligaments . muscle that act on the hip joint and the range of motion are outlined. factors affecting hip joint stability and weight transmission through the joint are summarized.
Chapter wise All Notes of First year Basic Civil Engineering.pptxDenish Jangid
Chapter wise All Notes of First year Basic Civil Engineering
Syllabus
Chapter-1
Introduction to objective, scope and outcome the subject
Chapter 2
Introduction: Scope and Specialization of Civil Engineering, Role of civil Engineer in Society, Impact of infrastructural development on economy of country.
Chapter 3
Surveying: Object Principles & Types of Surveying; Site Plans, Plans & Maps; Scales & Unit of different Measurements.
Linear Measurements: Instruments used. Linear Measurement by Tape, Ranging out Survey Lines and overcoming Obstructions; Measurements on sloping ground; Tape corrections, conventional symbols. Angular Measurements: Instruments used; Introduction to Compass Surveying, Bearings and Longitude & Latitude of a Line, Introduction to total station.
Levelling: Instrument used Object of levelling, Methods of levelling in brief, and Contour maps.
Chapter 4
Buildings: Selection of site for Buildings, Layout of Building Plan, Types of buildings, Plinth area, carpet area, floor space index, Introduction to building byelaws, concept of sun light & ventilation. Components of Buildings & their functions, Basic concept of R.C.C., Introduction to types of foundation
Chapter 5
Transportation: Introduction to Transportation Engineering; Traffic and Road Safety: Types and Characteristics of Various Modes of Transportation; Various Road Traffic Signs, Causes of Accidents and Road Safety Measures.
Chapter 6
Environmental Engineering: Environmental Pollution, Environmental Acts and Regulations, Functional Concepts of Ecology, Basics of Species, Biodiversity, Ecosystem, Hydrological Cycle; Chemical Cycles: Carbon, Nitrogen & Phosphorus; Energy Flow in Ecosystems.
Water Pollution: Water Quality standards, Introduction to Treatment & Disposal of Waste Water. Reuse and Saving of Water, Rain Water Harvesting. Solid Waste Management: Classification of Solid Waste, Collection, Transportation and Disposal of Solid. Recycling of Solid Waste: Energy Recovery, Sanitary Landfill, On-Site Sanitation. Air & Noise Pollution: Primary and Secondary air pollutants, Harmful effects of Air Pollution, Control of Air Pollution. . Noise Pollution Harmful Effects of noise pollution, control of noise pollution, Global warming & Climate Change, Ozone depletion, Greenhouse effect
Text Books:
1. Palancharmy, Basic Civil Engineering, McGraw Hill publishers.
2. Satheesh Gopi, Basic Civil Engineering, Pearson Publishers.
3. Ketki Rangwala Dalal, Essentials of Civil Engineering, Charotar Publishing House.
4. BCP, Surveying volume 1
This slide is special for master students (MIBS & MIFB) in UUM. Also useful for readers who are interested in the topic of contemporary Islamic banking.
How to Make a Field Mandatory in Odoo 17Celine George
In Odoo, making a field required can be done through both Python code and XML views. When you set the required attribute to True in Python code, it makes the field required across all views where it's used. Conversely, when you set the required attribute in XML views, it makes the field required only in the context of that particular view.
Strategies for Effective Upskilling is a presentation by Chinwendu Peace in a Your Skill Boost Masterclass organisation by the Excellence Foundation for South Sudan on 08th and 09th June 2024 from 1 PM to 3 PM on each day.
How to Manage Your Lost Opportunities in Odoo 17 CRMCeline George
Odoo 17 CRM allows us to track why we lose sales opportunities with "Lost Reasons." This helps analyze our sales process and identify areas for improvement. Here's how to configure lost reasons in Odoo 17 CRM
Main Java[All of the Base Concepts}.docxadhitya5119
This is part 1 of my Java Learning Journey. This Contains Custom methods, classes, constructors, packages, multithreading , try- catch block, finally block and more.
This presentation was provided by Steph Pollock of The American Psychological Association’s Journals Program, and Damita Snow, of The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), for the initial session of NISO's 2024 Training Series "DEIA in the Scholarly Landscape." Session One: 'Setting Expectations: a DEIA Primer,' was held June 6, 2024.
2. Ethics
• Ethics or moral philosophy = branch of philosophy
concerned with issues of rightness and justice, or fairness
It involves the development of systematic approaches to determine „right‟ or
„wrong‟ behaviour (Rawls, 2000)
• Together with religion and science, it has had a major
influence on the development of attitudes towards animals
3. Ethical Veganism
•Veganism is part of an ethical stance
which rejects the view of sentient beings
as commodity
•Ethical vegans do not only follow a vegan
diet, rather they oppose the use of animals
or animal products for any purpose
“The doctrine that man should live without
exploiting animals.‟‟ (1951)
•The term vegan was coined by Donald
Watson in 1944 when he co-founded the
British Vegan Society
4. Aristotle
(384–322 BC)
•Animals have sense
perception but lack reason
•Animals thus exist for the
use of humans (the only
rational animals)
oNB also, on the basis of
reason
men are superior to
women
some humans are
suited to be slaves
5. Judaico-Christian tradition
• For the Bible, God created humans in his own image and free to use
natural resources – including animals – for their own purposes
• Christian philosophers since the Middle Ages (Augustine, Thomas
Aquinas) have claimed that animals lack reason and are therefore
subordinate
• Judaism has placed greater importance in minimizing pain caused to
animals
6. René Descartes (16
century French philosopher):
1.
2.
Language is the only
evidence of mind
(thought, reason, and
feeling)
Only humans possess
language
Conclusion: animals lack
reason & feeling
th
11. Pythagoras
• Pythagoras's school (sixth century
BC, Magna Grecia) advocated a refusal
to eat meat or to offer blood sacrifice
• Pythagoras believed that
- the human soul could transmigrate to
humans or other animals after death
- the ultimate goal was to free the soul from
earthly existence and reunite with its divine
origins
13. David Hume (1711-1776)
„Animals undoubtedly feel‟ (1742)
• Sympathy is the source of moral thought
• It can be extended to sensitive creatures
• But justice only concerns humans (equal
in power)
14. Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
• Rejects reason, autonomy, selfconsciousness, and power as
requirements for moral concern
• Moral living requires compassion for all
beings who can suffer
• But humans deserve higher moral
concern in virtue of their intelligence
(thus increased capacity for suffering)
15. Charles Darwin (1809-1882)
• Humans evolved from other animal species by natural selection
• Animals’ and humans’ capacities differ in degree not in kind
17. Eastern philosophies: Ahimsa
• The Indian traditions of Jainism, Hinduism, and
Buddhism accept the doctrine of ahimsa
Non harm to all living things
Reverence to all life
18. Native Americans
•Nature is animated by spirit
•Spiritual view of animal
life, which is owed respect
•It‟s however allowed to kill and
consume animals
21. Cognitive Ethology
•In 1976 Donald Griffin publishes
„The Question of Animal
Awareness‟
Animal behaviour can be studied in the
context of evolutionary theory
„Inner states‟ (beliefs, desires, feelings,
etc.) used to explain behaviour
23. Peter Singer
• Exposed shocking cruelty to animals used in modern farms and
laboratories
• Philosophical framework inspired by Bentham
o Utilitarian – goal: to maximize overall welfare
o Pleasure and pain (sentience) as requirements of moral consideration
o Only sentient beings can have interests
o Principle of equal consideration – when deciding on our actions, we should
consider equally the interests of all beings (human and non human alike) who
are involved
Different from equal treatment
24. Speciesism (Richard Ryder)
• Racism = privileging the
interests of one ethnic group
• Sexism = privileging the
interests of one gender
• Speciesism = privileging the
interests of one species
25. Peter Singer, Welfarism, and Vegetarianism
• Singer does not rule out the use of animals
− It is possible to use animals for human purposes as long as:
a.
Their interests have been considered equally
b.
Their use maximizes overall utility
•
The focus is on their treatment (welfare)
•
He describes himself as a „flexible vegan‟
•
His argument for vegetarianism is on utilitarian grounds, namely
−
in raising animals for our food, we cause them more suffering than we gain by
eating their flesh
26. Tom Regan – Animal Rights
„The Case for Animal Rights‟
(1983)
•To achieve justice for animals we
need to recognise their rights
•The most basic right is to
respectful treatment
One must never be used merely as a
means to secure the best overall
consequences
•Thus, some uses of animals are
ruled out categorically
27. Singer versus Regan
Singer
• Moral status is rooted in sentience
• Human use of animals permitted if
their interests are considered equally
and aggregate welfare increases as a
result
• Vegetarianism (equal consideration of
interests)
• In a life-boat situation humans take the
precedence
Regan
• Moral status is rooted in being
the subject-of-a-life
• Any form of exploitation that
treats animals as mere tools is
condemned
• Veganism
• In a life-boat situation humans
take the precedence
28. Gary L. Francione
„We must be clear that veganism is the unequivocal baseline of anything
that deserves to be called an “animal rights” movement. If “animal rights”
means anything, it means that we cannot morally justify any animal
exploitation; we cannot justify treating animals as human
resources, however “humane” that treatment may be.‟ (from Animal Rights:
The Abolitionist Approach, blog post, 2012)
29. Joan Dunayer
•Equal right to moral consideration and
legal protection to all animals (all sentient
beings)
•Strong opposition to „bans‟ within the
status quo (welfare regulations)
•Language perpetuates speciesism (the
„oppressor‟s language‟)
30. Mark Rowlands
• John Rawls, „Theory of Justice‟ (1971) – social
contract as the basis for a just society
• In the „original position‟ the contracting parties are
under a „veil of ignorance‟
This ensures that they choose impartially fair and just
principles
• But animals are left out from the contract, since:
I.
II.
Mark with Brenin
They do not contribute to society
They are not „moral persons‟
31. Mark Rowlands
• Under the „veil of ignorance‟ one
does not know which species
they belong to either
It makes sense to extend justice to
animals
32. Ethic of Care
„The Feminist Care Tradition in Animal Ethics’ (2006)
Contributions by Carol Adams, Josephine Donovan,
Marti Kheel, Lori Gruen, et al.
• The oppression of animals and women is interrelated (and so is their
liberation)
• Reason has been overvalued in traditional Western philosophy, to the detriment
of our feelings of care for others
• Justice – determined by our care for others - should be extended to those we
care for (animals)
33. Ethic of Care
„The Feminist Care Tradition in Animal Ethics’ (2006)
- Contributions by Carol Adams, Josephine Donovan, Marti
Kheel, Lori Gruen, et al.
• Emotion and feeling valued over
reason
• Importance of
Relationships and partiality
Context over abstraction
34. Carol Adams
•Consumption of meat has become central to
the organization and economy of human
societies
•Access to meat has been traditionally
controlled by men (hunters)
•Men‟s control over meat supply ensured high
power and elevated status over women
•The link between meat-eating and male
superiority survives in modern societies
Meat eating identified with
virility, strength, power, and maleness
35. Cora Diamond
• „Eating Animals and Eating People‟ (1978)
- Singer‟s and Regan‟s arguments for vegetarianism are wrong:
- The reasons why we do not eat our dead have nothing to do with
interests which warrant protection
- a human being is not something to eat, and this is a fundamental
feature of what it means to be human
- We attribute significance in virtue of our relationships with others
(human or non)
- The animal as „fellow creature‟ – we share the same vulnerability in life
and death
37. Humane treatment
• Wouldn‟t it be ok to eat animals who have had a
good life and have been painlessly killed?
• And what about using animal products which do not
involve killing the animal, such as dairy and eggs (as
long as the animals are treated humanely)?
38. Eating animals
• Wouldn‟t it be ok to eat animals who have died of a
natural death? Or by accident (e.g. road-kill)? Why?
39. Extinction of domestic animals
• In her book “When Species Meet,” Donna Haraway describes the
vegan logic of avoidance as subtly supporting extermination. If vegans
denounce all possible “uses” of animals, should the animals simply not
exist? if there were no uses of animal products, would cows, sheep,
chickens go extinct?
40. Are all animals equal?
• Should we protect mosquitoes, leeches, and other parasites? Where
do you draw the line? What criteria do you apply for this purpose?
41. Language
Can you think of ways in which everyday language
belittles and trivializes animals and animal-related
issues?
43. Plants‟ rights
• How would you answer to those who ask, „But what
about plants, shouldn‟t we give them rights too?
44. Persuasion
• Are some methods of persuading other people to
adopt a vegan ethos more effective than others?
• If so, can you identify them?
• Why do you think they are more effective?
Editor's Notes
In my presentation this evening I will not attempt to give either a deep or an exhaustive account of philosophy’s answers to the animal issue. (It would just not be possible due to the time constraints, and it would also result rather boring and technical). Instead, I will just provide a brief historical sketch, choosing some of the people who have engaged with the topic and contributed interesting and/or influential views in the past and in the present. Many have been left out. We will just be skimming over the surface, but I hope this will whet your appetite for more. And if you have any questions about any of the ideas presented, I would encourage you to ask. There are two parts to the talk. The first hour will be dedicated to presenting the philosophical themes. The second, after a short break, will require your participation. We will try to answer some common questions we may be asked as activists, ideally taking into account some of the ideas you’ll have been exposed to this evening. I hope this may be of some help. Thank you.
Aristotle was a Greek philosopher, student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great.Aristotle's views profoundly shaped medieval scholarship, and their influence extended well into the Renaissance, and even beyond in some areas (including zoology, logic, and ethics itself (virtue ethics))For Aristotle all things are made of form (essential characteristics) and matter – example of a chairIn his treatise De Anima (On the Soul), Aristotle identifies three kinds of soul ("psyches“ = form of living beings): - the vegetative soul, which can grow and nourish itself (present in all living things)- the sensitive soul, which can experience sensations and move (present in animals) and the rational soul, which pertains to humans only. In addition to having the same capacities as the other kinds, the rational soul is able to receive forms of other things and compare them.
Jewish prescriptions for the slaughter of animals for food (Kosher), condemnation of hunting for pleasure, bullfights, and dogfightsIslam also considers animals for human use, but the Koran forbids cruelty to animals (and suggests that animals have some rationality)A brief aside on ritual slaughter. In the West farm animals are routinely killed by being stunned first (in order to be rendered unconscious) and then stuck by a knife and bled. Jewish strict guidelines (very similar to the Islamic Halal) require the animal be killed by a single cut across the throat to a precise depth, causing the animal to bleed to death. Orthodox Jews argue that this ensures the animal dies instantly without unnecessary suffering, but many animal welfarists view the process as cruel, arguing that the animal may not lose consciousness immediately. This, however is true of Western methods too, as widely documented by undercover investigations into slaughterhouses, and affecting a variety of species, from poultry to cattle.
Objections:1. Language is not the only evidence of mind - we ascribe mind to people that don’t possess language (infants, brain-damaged, autistic, etc.) - we must be able to remember without language, otherwise, how could we acquire language in the first place? - there is other evidence of mind 2. Animals do possess language - communication among animals - experiments teaching sign language to apesThere is no reason why animals should lack reason and feeling3. Even if animals did lack language and reason, it doesn’t follow logically that they don’t deserve moral concern! - we consider infants, brain-damaged, autistic, etc. as legitimate objects of moral concern
Body (res extensa) versus soul (res cogitans)Only humans have a soul; their body – like that of other animals -is a mechanism. The lack of a soul had devastating consequences for nonhuman animals:Animals do not feel pain, their anguished cries are only mechanical responses. Thus, Cartesian philosophy sanctioned the widespread practice of vivisection and the confinement of animals on factory farms.Ironically the animal studies, showing the anatomical similarities (particularly concerning the nervous system) to humans also fostered in many an increased sensitivity/empathy towards other animals.
Any human being is an end in themselves, while animals have only instrumental value.Human autonomy (freedom from the causal determinism of nature) justifies the human use of animalsFor Kant (like Descartes):1. only humans possess language2. reason = possession of language3. animals have no language and therefore no reason4. only rational beings can be object of moral concernConclusion: animals are not direct object of moral concern (they can only be indirectly, for the effect that cruelty towards animals has on the perpetrator)Kant opposed the idea that humans have direct duties toward nonhumans. Thus, cruelty to animals was wrong only because it was bad for humankind. Since ‘’it deadens in him the feeling of sympathy for their sufferings, and thus a natural tendency that is very useful to morality in relation to other human beings is weakened."(1785) But are animals rational?- Empiricism (importance of experience over thought as basis of knowledge)- anecdotal and scientific evidence Do they use concepts? (debate still open today)
(accomplished through a series of strict, ascetic rules for purifying the body)Interestingly, the term ‘Pythagorean’ (meaning vegetarian) was in use until 1847, when the first vegetarian society was established in England
What is morally relevant is not language or rationality, but rather the ability to experience pleasure and pain.Utilitarianism- To test whether an action is right or wrong, we must check whether it produces the greatest amount of pleasure/least amount of pain for the greatest number- The calculation must include all creatures capable of suffering, including animals.
There is an entire current of Continental philosophy which has addressed the animal question, but I am not going to focus on it during this presentation- Notice the emphasis on intelligence: we’ll see later that for many contemporary philosophers interested in animal ethics (and also in Bentham), intelligence is a morally irrelevant characteristic- Also, does being more intelligent mean suffering more? Example of infants.
Many animals, according to Darwin, possess general concepts, some reasoning ability, rudiments of moral sentiments, and complex emotionsThese claims have been widely ignored by scientists and philosophers alike until recentlyThe theory of evolution, however, makes the unbridgeable gap dividing humans and other animals difficult to sustain
All these traditions share the belief in reincarnationJains and Buddhists emphasize the interconnectedness of all living things, recommend vegetarianism, and oppose traditional animal sacrificesHinduism has been increasingly influenced by Buddhism and Jainism, thus ahimsa has become more central. Animal-protection is rooted in self-interest due to the belief in karma (i.e. that harming life will result in later suffering for the person who inflicts the harm)
For behaviourists only what can be observed (behaviour) and measured can be studiedExample of Pavlov’s dogs: If presented with food or the smell of food (stimulus), a dog will salivate (response). A behaviourist is not interested in what goes on in the dog’s ‘mind’ (tellingly labelled as ‘black box’)- Classical Conditioning as a form of associative learning: a behavioural response (e.g. Salivation) is taught to be associated with a new, neutral stimulus (e.g. Bell) - First studied by Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov (1849-1936)- (The dogs studied by Pavlov were held in a harness, with one of their salivary glands connected through a tube to a collecting bottle. He presented them with the stimuli and then checked how much saliva they produced)
Contemporary cognitive ethologists are Mark Bekoff (who has co-written several papers and books with philosopher Colin Allen)and Jonathan Balcombe.Bekoff:- c.e. involves the evolutionary and comparative study of animal thought processes, consciousness, beliefs, or rationality.- e.g. social play (bow) – communication of play intentions
Utilitarian = the test of the rightness or wrongness of an action is whether it produces the greatest amount of pleasure (or least amount of pain) for the greatest numberHuman equality as the theoretical outcome, of social movements such as women’s liberation, black liberation, and gay liberationEquality amongst human beings is based on the shared ability to suffer, not on any factual equality between beings in terms of strength, intelligence, virtue, or any other capacityIn order to be consistent we must extend moral equality to all sentient beings
While some critics were appalled by the idea of breaking down the divide between humans and animalsOthers did not think Singer went far enough
He advocates vegetarianismArgument is as follows:- Intensive farming causes great animal suffering For most of us the pleasure from eating meat does not outweigh the suffering of the animals intensively farmed Most of us cannot know the provenance of what we eatConclusion: Most of us should not eat meat
Sentient animals possess the right to respectful treatment because they possess inherent value (they are individuals whose value cannot be reduced to their usefulness for others)They have inherent value in virtue of being ‘subjects-of-a-life’: Beings with, beliefs, desires, interests, etc.Rights provide limits around the individual, whereby the limits cannot be crossed even when it would be advantageous to do so for society at large.‘Equal inherent value confers merely a prima facie right not to be harmed. This right is overridden in cases such as Regan’s lifeboat scenario, in which several human beings and a dog are in a lifeboat and one individual must be thrown overboard in order to save the others. Given, Regan argues, that each of the humans has greater opportunities for future satisfaction than the dog, it is the dog who unquestionably should be sacrificed. Moreover, the number of dogs has no bearing on the outcome; it would be appropriate, Regan believes, to sacrifice even a million dogs to save one human being in such circumstances.’ (Gary Steiner, 2012)The ‘subject-of-a-life’ criterion is quite stringent and excludes some sentient animals and even some sentient humans. Thus some philosophers (Robert Garner, Joel Feinberg) have mirrored Singer in making sentience the only requirement for inclusion.
Rights based theory rules out all human uses of animals (as pets, in zoos, in circuses, in sport, etc.)Like Singer, he argues that sentience is the sole appropriate criterion for moral status. And like Regan, he argues that moral worth is inherent. But unlike both Singer and Regan, Francione argues that the level of cognitive sophistication a being possesses is completely irrelevant to considerations of moral status.The respect principle logically entails that animals have the right not to be the property of others, since being property is necessarily conducive to being treated in an instrumental wayTheir interests will always be subordinated to those of the property ownersAnalogy between owned animals and human slaves: even if the slave is treated well, he is still dominated and dependent on the goodwill of othersBut (R. Garner, 2012)is it true that owning a piece of property necessarily leads to treating it as a mere economic commodity?Animals always depend on our goodwill to some extentLife-boat scenario for Francione:every sentient being has an interest in continued existence. If we are confronted with a burning house in which we can save either a human being (say, your child) or a dog, Francione argues that there is no principle according to which the human ought to be saved rather than the dog.
‘All beings who can feel need protection, all beings who can feel are entitled to rights. The sole criterion for rights should be sentience.’These include insects, such as honeybees‘Speciesist language remains socially acceptable even to people who view themselves as progressive. Speciesism pervades our language, from scholarly jargon to street slang’. (English and Speciesism, 2003)The use of ‘IT’, insults to humans using animal epithets, terms like ‘cull’, ‘harvest’, ‘tools’, etc. can you think of more?
The original position is a hypothetical device to help us find out which political principles are just.The veil of ignorance signifies that they do not know their own characteristics, talents, social status, etc.For Rawls we should be compassionate to animals, but we do not owe them justice.Rawls’ exclusion of animals from justice can be criticized:Not all humans contribute to society either;Animals do contribute to human societyNot all humans are persons (infants, severely mentally disabled)(some) animals may be personsBeing a person implies having a concept of the good and a sense of justice
On the interrelation of animal and women’s oppression, it is based on 4 ideas:The patriarchal domination of natureDualism of rational, scientific, and masculine versus natural, physical, emotional, and feminineReason should dominate natureThe valorisation of meat-eatingSee this with Carol AdamsLanguage useAnimal names given to women as a form of abuse (chick, cow, bitch, bird, etc.); referring to animals as thingsObjectification through property statusBoth animals and women treated as things, ‘pieces of meat’ to be used and discarded by menReason – according to the feminists – has been used as the basis to determine both:Who gets justice – resulting in the exclusion of women and animals.What justice is – neglecting the importance of sentiment/emotion in moralityReason-based approaches to animal justice are subject to 5 criticisms:Reason can go awry (yet we cannot abandon reason)The claim not to rely on sentiment is falseThey are out of touch with the actual views and motivations of activists (disgust at what we do to animals) (Brian Luke)Rights are claims against someone and therefore antagonistic (Marti Kheel) (but this is not necessarily the case)They are essentialist – they reduce animals to some capacity (for interests) while relationships are unimportant(from An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory, Alasdair Cochraine, 2010)
The risks associated with this line of thinking:Emphasis on relationship can sanction prejudice and bias (e.g. I like cats but not dogs; Asians but not blacks, etc.); rather, political communities should be impartial in formulating obligations and policies.Can we rely on people capacity for care? the assumption is the that the natural human response to animals is one of care, which is compromised by society’s efforts (through religion, propaganda, and scientific dogma.)Political analysis allows our true feelings of care to be exposed.Is there such a thing as a single natural attitude that all human beings share?
(1990)Once again, women and animals as pieces of meat for the sexual or gustatory gratification of men.Parallel between: animals at a slaughterhouse and women victims of rape, both treated like unfeeling, inert objectsPageants and animal shows, in both case individuals are displayed and paraded as objects to admire; they are reduced to mere things for the pleasure of the observer, only valued for their appearancePossible criticisms to idea of interrelation:The oppression of women and animals not necessarily linkedThe liberation of women and animals not necessarily interdependent
Cora Diamond is a Wittgensteinian philosopher. Even though she does not explicitly refer to the feminist tradition, however, she shares some of the same concerns and solutions:A distrust in the ability of reason alone to provide a basis for the moral consideration of animals; Her emphasis on relationships;Her emphasis on sentiments of concern and empathy for the other fellow creatures.Elsewhere, Diamond talks about ‘the difficulty of reality’, whereby ‘The suffering of animals is, it exists, and we should be touched and wounded by it without the need for argumentative support’ (Diamond, 2008, p. 51). She talks of ‘the livingness and death of animals […] as presences that may unseat our reason’ (p. 74). Moral theory (particularly when resorting to universal rights) risks to ‘deflect’, ‘distort’, and ‘trivialize’ fundamental issues of justice (Diamond, 2001, p. 121). However, acknowledging the difficulty of reality as it is, does not warrant a defeatist stance. Moral theory – far from acting as deflection – can provide a framework which helps make sense of reality (Aaltola, 2010)‘Wounded we may be, but let us not become crippled.’ (ibid., p. 42).
Francione: Bans as abolitionistCriticism of single issue campaigns,‘A single-issue campaign involves identifying some particular use of animals or some form of treatment and making that the object of a campaign to end the use or modify the treatment. The problem of a single-issue campaign is that it presents some particular use or treatment as morally distinguishable from other forms of use or treatment and by doing so explicitly or implicitly suggests that other forms of exploitation are morally less problematic’ (blog post February 2010)Campaigns should always be presented ‘within a specific framework that rejects use and emphasizes ethical veganism as the central issue’.