Related categories
Siblings:
25 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Sort by:
  1. Elisa Aaltola (2012). Animal Suffering: Philosophy and Culture. Palgrave Macmillan.
    Animal Suffering: Philosophy and Culture explores the multifaceted moral meanings allocated to non-human suffering in contemporary Western culture.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Colin Allen (2005). Deciphering Animal Pain. In Murat Aydede (ed.), Pain: New Essays on Its Nature and the Methodology of Its Study. Cambridge MA: Bradford Book/MIT Press.
    In this paper we1 assess the potential for research on nonhuman animals to address questions about the phenomenology of painful experiences. Nociception, the basic capacity for sensing noxious stimuli, is widespread in the animal kingdom. Even rel- atively primitive animals such as leeches and sea slugs possess nociceptors, neurons that are functionally specialized for sensing noxious stimuli (Walters 1996). Vertebrate spinal cords play a sophisticated role in processing and modulating nociceptive signals, providing direct control of some motor responses to noxious (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Colin Allen (2004). Animal Pain. Noûs 38 (4):617-43.
    Which nonhuman animals experience conscious pain?1 This question is central to the debate about animal welfare, as well as being of basic interest to scientists and philosophers of mind. Nociception—the capacity to sense noxious stimuli—is one of the most primitive sensory capacities. Neurons functionally specialized for nociception have been described in invertebrates such as the leech Hirudo medicinalis and the marine snail Aplysia californica (Walters 1996). Is all nociception accompanied by conscious pain, even in relatively primitive animals such as Aplysia, (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (11 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Jonny Anomaly (2014). What's Wrong with Factory Farming? Public Health Ethics 7:phu001.
    Factory farming continues to grow around the world as a low cost way of producing animal products for human consumption. But many of the practices associated with intensive animal farming have been criticized by public health professionals and animal welfare advocates. The aim of this essay is to raise three independent moral concerns with factory farming, and to explain why these practices flourish despite the cruelty inflicted on animals and the public health risks imposed on people. I conclude that the (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Arnold Arluke (2006). Just a Dog: Understanding Animal Cruelty and Ourselves. Temple University Press.
    Agents: feigning authority -- Adolescents: appropriating adulthood -- Hoarders: shoring up self -- Shelter workers: finding authenticity -- Marketers: Celebrating community -- Cruelty is good to think.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Susan J. Armstrong & Richard George Botzler (eds.) (2008). The Animal Ethics Reader. Routledge.
    The Animal Ethics Reader is the first comprehensive, state-of-the-art anthology of readings on this substantial area of study and interest. A subject that regularly captures the headlines, the book is designed to appeal to anyone interested in tracing the history of the subject, as well as providing a powerful insight into the debate as it has developed. The recent wealth of material published in this area has not, until now, been collected in one volume. Readings are arranged thematically, carefully presenting (...)
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Christiane Bailey & Chloë Taylor (2013). Editor's Introduction. Phaenex. Journal of Existential and Phenomenological Theory and Culture 8 (2):i-xv.
    Christiane Bailey and Chloë Taylor (Editorial Introduction) Sue Donaldson (Stirring the Pot - A short play in six scenes) Ralph Acampora (La diversification de la recherche en éthique animale et en études animales) Eva Giraud (Veganism as Affirmative Biopolitics: Moving Towards a Posthumanist Ethics?) Leonard Lawlor (The Flipside of Violence, or Beyond the Thought of Good Enough) Kelly Struthers Montford (The “Present Referent”: Nonhuman Animal Sacrifice and the Constitution of Dominant Albertan Identity) James Stanescu (Beyond Biopolitics: Animal Studies, Factory Farms, (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Miles Barton (1989). Why Do People Harm Animals? Gloucester Press.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Lara Denis (2000). Kant's Conception of Duties Regarding Animals: Reconstruction and Reconsideration. History of Philosophy Quarterly 17 (4):405-23.
    In Kant’s moral theory, we do not have duties to animals, though we have duties with regard to them. I reconstruct Kant’s arguments for several types of duties with regard to animals and show that Kant’s theory imposes far more robust requirements on our treatment of animals than one would expect. Kant’s duties regarding animals are perfect and imperfect; they are primarily but not exclusively duties to oneself; and they condemn not merely cruelty to animals for its own sake, but (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. S. Benjamin Fink (2010). Review of Victoria Braithwaite's „Do Fish Feel Pain?“. [REVIEW] Metapsychology 14 (34).
  11. Danny Frederick, Why It is Ethical to Eat Meat.
    One-page summary of the case for why it is not wrong to eat meat.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Lisa Guenther (2012). Beyond Dehumanization: A Post-Humanist Critique of Intensive Confinement. Journal of Critical Animal Studies. Special Issue on Animals and Prisons 10 (2).
    Prisoners involved in the Attica rebellion and in the recent Georgia prison strike have protested their dehumanizing treatment as animals and as slaves. Their critique is crucial for tracing the connections between slavery, abolition, the racialization of crime, and the reinscription of racialized slavery within the US prison system. I argue that, in addition to the dehumanization of prisoners, inmates are further de-animalized when they are held in conditions of intensive confinement such as prolonged solitude or chronic overcrowding. To be (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Matthew C. Halteman (2011). Varieties of Harm to Animals in Industrial Farming. Journal of Animal Ethics 1 (2):122-131.
    Skeptics of the moral case against industrial farming often assert that harm to animals in industrial systems is limited to isolated instances of abuse that do not reflect standard practice and thus do not merit criticism of the industry at large. I argue that even if skeptics are correct that abuse is the exception rather than the rule, they must still answer for two additional varieties of serious harm to animals that are pervasive in industrial systems: procedural harm and institutional (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Michael Murray (2006). Neo-Cartesianism and the Problem of Animal Suffering. Faith and Philosophy 23 (2):169-190.
    The existence and extent of animal suffering provides grounds for a serious evidential challenge to theism. In the wake of the Darwinian revolution, this strain of natural atheology has taken on substantially greater significance. In this essay we argue that there are at least four neo-Cartesian views on the nature of animal minds which would serve to deflect this evidential challenge.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. David Pearce, Reprogramming Predators — Blueprint for a Cruelty-Free World.
    "The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all k inds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease. It must be so." -/- —Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden (1995).
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Roy W. Perrett (1997). The Analogical Argument for Animal Pain. Journal of Applied Philosophy 14 (1):49-58.
    Philosophical defenders of animal liberation believe that we have direct duties to animals. Typically a presumption of that belief is that animals have the capacity to experience pain and suffering. Notoriously, however, a strand of Western scientific and philosophical thought has held animals to be incapable of experiencing pain, and even today one frequently encounters in discussions of animal liberation expressions of scepticism about whether animals really experience pain. -/- The Analogical Argument for Animal Pain responds to this scepticism by (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Evangelos D. Protopapadakis (ed.) (2012). Animal Ethics: Past and Present Perspectives. Logos Verlag.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Andrew Nicholas Rowan (2006). Animal Cruelty: Definitions and Sociology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29 (3):238-239.
    The definition of cruelty used by the author is broad and ambiguous and does not distinguish between acts of sadism, abuse, and neglect that all lead to the suffering of other beings. Some of the research involving animal cruelty is reviewed with the aim of raising questions about the relevance of the pain–blood–death (PBD) complex described by Nell.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Krzysztof Saja (2013). The Moral Footprint of Animal Products. Agriculture and Human Values 30 (2):193–202.
    Most ethical discussions about diet are focused on the justification of specific kinds of products rather than an individual assessment of the moral footprint of eating products of certain animal species. This way of thinking is represented in the typical division of four dietary attitudes. There are vegans, vegetarians, welfarists and ordinary meat-eaters. However, the common “all or nothing” discussions between meat-eaters, vegans and vegetarians bypass very important factors in assessing dietary habits. I argue that if we want to discover (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Adam Shriver (2009). Knocking Out Pain in Livestock: Can Technology Succeed Where Morality has Stalled? Neuroethics 2 (3):115-124.
    Though the vegetarian movement sparked by Peter Singer’s book Animal Liberation has achieved some success, there is more animal suffering caused today due to factory farming than there was when the book was originally written. In this paper, I argue that there may be a technological solution to the problem of animal suffering in intensive factory farming operations. In particular, I suggest that recent research indicates that we may be very close to, if not already at, the point where we (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Toby Svoboda (2014). A Reconsideration of Indirect Duties Regarding Non-Human Organisms. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 17 (2):311-323.
    According to indirect duty views, human beings lack direct moral duties to non-human organisms, but our direct duties to ourselves and other humans give rise to indirect duties regarding non-humans. On the orthodox interpretation of Kant’s account of indirect duties, one should abstain from treating organisms in ways that render one more likely to violate direct duties to humans. This indirect duty view is subject to several damaging objections, such as that it misidentifies the moral reasons we have to treat (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Toby Svoboda (2012). Duties Regarding Nature: A Kantian Approach to Environmental Ethics. Kant Yearbook 4 (1):143-163.
    Many philosophers have objected to Kant’s account of duties regarding non-human nature, arguing that it does not ground adequate moral concern for non-human natural entities. However, the traditional interpretation of Kant on this issue is mistaken, because it takes him to be arguing merely that humans should abstain from animal cruelty and wanton destruction of flora solely because such actions could make one more likely to violate one’s duties to human beings. Instead, I argue, Kant’s account of duties regarding nature (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Norman Swazo (2013). “The Animal” After Derrida: Interrogating the Bioethics of Geno-Cide. Les Ateliers de l'Éthique / the Ethics Forum 8 (1):91-123.
    Bioethics tends to be dominated by discourses concerned with the ethical dimension of medical practice, the organization of medical care, and the integrity of biomedical research involving human subjects and animal testing. Jacques Derrida has explored the fundamental question of the “limit” that identifies and differentiates the human animal from the nonhuman animal. However, to date his work has not received any reception in the field of biomedical ethics. In this paper, I examine what Derrida’s thought about this limit might (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Julia Tanner (2014). Clarifying the Concept of Cruelty: What Makes Cruelty to Animals Cruel. Heythrop Journal 56 (1):n/a-n/a.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Julia Tanner (2008). Why I Won’T Hurt Your Felines? In Steven Hales (ed.), What Philosophy Can Tell You About Your Cat. Open Court Publishing.
    Some philosophers (such as Kant and Rawls) think it is only wrong to be cruel to cats because it will make one behave cruelly to humans. This explanation is unsatisfactory. Why? Because being cruel to your cat is a direct wrong to your cat regardless of the effects it has on other humans. Ascribing the wrongness of cruelty to the fact it will make one callous to other humans is to assess the character of the cruel person not the act (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation