Related categories
Siblings:
89 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Order:
1 — 50 / 89
  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  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  2. Fred Adams (ed.) (2007). Ethics and the Life Sciences. Philosophy Document Center.
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3. Leslie Allan, Animal Rights and the Wrongness of Killing.
    This essay explores the moral reasoning underpinning the common view that it is worse to kill a human compared with killing an animal. After examining the serious deficiencies of traditional approaches, the author develops an alternative utilitarian-based framework that proportions the seriousness of killing to levels of sentience. He demonstrates how this new approach avoids the problems faced by the application of standard utilitarian formulae in weighing the seriousness of killing many low-sentience animals vis-á-vis killing a single human. The author (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4. 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  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  5. Robin Attfield (2011). Schmidtz on Species Egalitarianism. Ethics, Policy and Environment 14 (2):139 - 141.
    Ethics, Policy & Environment, Volume 14, Issue 2, Page 139-141, June 2011.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6. 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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7. Paul Bali, Book Review: A Critique of the Moral Defense of Vegetarianism.
    Andrew Smith makes his case against V-ism by appeal to (i) plant sentience, and (ii) the Transitivity of Eating principle (by which V-ans eat animals, since animals eat plants). By (i), V-ans are inconsistent in their prohibitions; by (ii) they are incoherent. -/- But, I argue, Smith and his beloved omnivore animists face similar pressures, insofar as they prohibit cannibalism.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  8. Marc Bekoff (1997). Deep Ethology, Animal Rights, and the Great Ape/Animal Project: Resisting Speciesism and Expanding the Community of Equals. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 10 (3):269-296.
    In this essay I argue that the evolutionary and comparative study of nonhuman animal (hereafter animal) cognition in a wide range of taxa by cognitive ethologists can readily inform discussions about animal protection and animal rights. However, while it is clear that there is a link between animal cognitive abilities and animal pain and suffering, I agree with Jeremy Bentham who claimed long ago the real question does not deal with whether individuals can think or reason but rather with whether (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  9. Marc Bekoff & Lofe Gruen (1993). Animal Welfare and Individual Characteristics: A Conversation Against Speciesism. Ethics and Behavior 3 (2):163 – 175.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10. Ted Benton (1988). Humanism = Speciesism: Marx on Humans and Animals. Radical Philosophy 50:3.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  11. Mark Bernstein (2004). Neo-Speciesism. Journal of Social Philosophy 35 (3):380–390.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  12. Ben Bramble (forthcoming). The Case Against Meat. In Ben Bramble Bob Fischer (ed.), The Moral Complexities of Eating Meat. Oxford University Press
    There is a simple but powerful argument against the human practice of raising and killing animals for food (RKF for short). It goes like this: 1. RKF is extremely bad for animals. 2. RKF is only trivially good for human beings Therefore, 3. RKF should be stopped. While many consider this argument decisive, not everyone is convinced. There have been four main lines of objection to it. In this paper, I provide new responses to these four objections.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  13. Stijn Bruers (2013). Speciesism as a Moral Heuristic. Philosophia 41 (2):489-501.
    In the last decade, the study of moral heuristics has gained in importance. I argue that we can consider speciesism as a moral heuristic: an intuitive rule of thumb that substitutes a target attribute (that is difficult to detect, e.g. “having rationality”) for a heuristic attribute (that is easier to detect, e.g. “looking like a human being”). This speciesism heuristic misfires when applied to some atypical humans such as the mentally disabled, giving them rights although they lack rationality. But I (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  14. Leonardo Caffo (2012). Vero E Giustificato. Contro Il Relativismo (Delle Azioni) Nella Questione Animale. la Caverna de Platón (e-print):1-30.
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  15. T. M. Caro (1989). Making a Dent in Speciesism. Biology and Philosophy 4 (3):353-357.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  16. Timothy Dj Chappell (1997). In Defence of Speciesism. In David S. Oderberg & Jacqueline A. Laing (eds.), Human Lives: Critical Essays on Consequentialist Bioethics. St. Martin's Press
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  17. Christopher Chapple (2005). The Specter of Speciesism: Buddhist and Christian Views of Animals (Review). Buddhist-Christian Studies 24 (1):293-295.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  18. T. Clements (1993). Universal Speciesism. Free Inquiry 13 (2):25-26.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  19. Bob Corbett, Bob Corbett's Comments On Peter Singer's Analysis That Leads to Speciesism.
    As we begin our exploration of our relationship with animals, we come face to face with Peter Singer and his insistence that speciesism is a vice. It is important to come to know what he means by speciesism, why he regards it as a moral mistake.
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  20. Bob Corbett, Bonnie Steinbock Comments and on and Criticisms of Peter Singer's "Speciesism" Argument.
    Bonnie Steinbock argues that Peter Singer has made an important contribution to remind us that animals deserve very special consideration, but that he fails to make a compelling case against "speciesism.".
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  21. Daniel Coren (2015). Anthropocentric Biocentrism in a Hybrid. Ethics and the Environment 20 (2):48-60.
    Anthropocentric biocentrism says that human beings ought to promote the survival of our own species above the survival of other species. But those who attack AB sometimes take it to say something much stronger: we ought to promote our species’ various desires, interests, and goals. I call the latter view AB+. I argue that AB and anti-AB+ are not only mutually compatible but in some respects mutually complementary, such that there are good prospects for combining them into a hybrid-view. After (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  22. Roger Crisp (1985). A Comment on 'On Behalf of a Moderate Speciesism' by Alan Holland. Journal of Applied Philosophy 2 (2):279-280.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  23. Simon Cushing (2003). Against "Humanism": Speciesism, Personhood, and Preference. Journal of Social Philosophy 34 (4):556–571.
    Article responds to the criticism of speciesism that it is somehow less immoral than other -isms by showing that this is a mistake resting on an inadequate taxonomy of the various -isms. Criticizes argument by Bonnie Steinbock that preference to your own species is not immoral by comparison with racism of comparable level.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  24. Nicolas Delon (2015). Against Moral Intrinsicalism. In Elisa Aaltola & John Hadley (eds.), Animal Ethics and Philosophy: Questioning the Orthodoxy. Rowman and Littlefield International
    This paper challenges a widespread, if tacit, assumption of animal ethics, namely, that the only properties of entities that matter to their moral status are intrinsic, cross‐specific properties—typically psychological capacities. According to moral individualism (Rachels 1990; McMahan 2002; 2005), the moral status of an individual, and how to treat him or her, should only be a function of his or her individual properties. I focus on the fundamental assumption of moral individualism, which I call intrinsicalism. On the challenged view, pigs, (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  25. Joan Dunayer (2004). Speciesism. Ryce Pub..
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  26. Rainer Ebert & Tibor R. Machan (2012). Innocent Threats and the Moral Problem of Carnivorous Animals. Journal of Applied Philosophy 29 (2):146-159.
    The existence of predatory animals is a problem in animal ethics that is often not taken as seriously as it should be. We show that it reveals a weakness in Tom Regan's theory of animal rights that also becomes apparent in his treatment of innocent human threats. We show that there are cases in which Regan's justice-prevails-approach to morality implies a duty not to assist the jeopardized, contrary to his own moral beliefs. While a modified account of animal rights that (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  27. Sônia T. Felipe (2007). From Moral Rights to Constitutional Rights: Beyond Élitist and Electiv Speciesism. Ethic@ 6:205-216.
    Animal rights movement and the laws it have propounded since the 19 th Century are critically analyzed in this article under the perspective of the elitist and elective speciesism that constitute both the foundation of anthropocentric and non-anthropocentric ethics. Moral tradition considers non human animal species as inferior to the human species since non human animals lack any characteristic for being morally considerable. This is conceived here as elitist speciesism. On the other hand, animal protection movements consider certain kinds of (...)
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  28. Roger Fjellstrom (2002). Specifying Speciesism. Environmental Values 11 (1):63-74.
    Many philosophers consider favouritism toward humans in the context of moral choice to be a prejudice. Several terms are used for it – ' speciesism ', 'human chauvinism', 'human racism', and 'anthropocentrism' – with somewhat varying and often blurred meanings, which brings confusion to the issue. This essay suggests that only one term, ' speciesism ', be used, and it attempts a conceptual clarification. To this end it proposes a set of conditions of adequacy for a concept that would be (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  29. William C. French (1995). Against Biospherical Egalitarianism. Environmental Ethics 17 (1):39-57.
    Arne Naess and Paul Taylor are two of the most forceful proponents of the principle of species equality. Problematically, both, when adjudicating conflict of interest cases, resort to employing explicit or implicit species-ranking arguments. I examine how Lawrence Johnson’s critical, species-ranking approach helpfully avoids the normative inconsistencies of “biospherical egalitarianism.” Many assume species-ranking schemes are rooted in arrogant, ontological claims about human, primate, or mammalian superiority. Species-ranking, I believe, is best viewed as a justified articulation of moral priorities in response (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  30. Michael Goldman (2001). A Transcendental Defense of Speciesism. Journal of Value Inquiry 35 (1):59-69.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  31. Donald Graft (1997). Against Strong Speciesism. Journal of Applied Philosophy 14 (2):107–118.
    Speciesism, difference of treatment based on an appeal to species membership, is often likened to racism and sexism, and condemned on those grounds. Some philosophers, however, reject this argument by analogy and instead forward an argument for speciesism based on a postulated right of species to compete for survival. This paper attacks this strong form of speciesism by showing that the underlying concept of ‘species’ is incoherent in the context of morality, and that strong speciesism has unacceptable corollaries.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  32. Christopher Grau (2010). Moral Status, Speciesism, and Liao’s Genetic Account. Journal of Moral Philosophy 7 (3):387-96.
    This paper offers several criticisms of the account of rightholding laid out in S. Matthew Liao’s recent paper “The Basis of Human Moral Status.” I argue that Liao’s account both does too much and too little: it grants rightholder status to those who may not deserve it, and it does not provide grounds for offering such status to those who arguably do deserve it. Given these troubling aspects of his approach, I encourage Liao to abandon his “physical basis of moral (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  33. John Hacker-Wright (2007). Moral Status in Virtue Ethics. Philosophy 82 (3):449-473.
    My contention is that virtue ethics offers an important critique of traditional philosophical conceptions of moral status as well as an alternative view of important moral issues held to depend on moral status. I argue that the scope of entities that deserve consideration depends on our conception of the demands of virtues like justice; which entities deserve consideration emerges from a moral view of a world shaped by that conception. The deepest disputes about moral status depend on conflicting conceptions of (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  34. John Hadley (2015). Animal Property Rights: A Theory of Habitat Rights for Wild Animals. Lexington Books.
    This book explores a theory of habitat rights for wild animals, positioning animal property rights within the existing institution of property and discussing the practical implications of giving property rights to animals.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  35. Alan J. Holland (1984). On Behalf of Moderate Speciesism. Journal of Applied Philosophy 1 (2):281-291.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  36. Oscar Horta (2014). The Scope of the Argument From Species Overlap. Journal of Applied Philosophy 31 (2):142-154.
    The argument from species overlap has been widely used in the literature on animal ethics and speciesism. However, there has been much confusion regarding what the argument proves and what it does not prove, and regarding the views it challenges. This article intends to clarify these confusions, and to show that the name most often used for this argument (‘the argument from marginal cases’) reflects and reinforces these misunderstandings. The article claims that the argument questions not only those defences of (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  37. Oscar Horta (2013). Animals, Moral Status Of. In Hugh LaFollette (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Ethics. Wiley
  38. Oscar Horta (2010). The Ethics of the Ecology of Fear Against the Nonspeciesist Paradigm: A Shift in the Aims of Intervention in Nature. Between the Species 13 (10):163-187.
    Humans often intervene in the wild for anthropocentric or environmental reasons. An example of such interventions is the reintroduction of wolves in places where they no longer live in order to create what has been called an “ecology of fear”, which is being currently discussed in places such as Scotland. In the first part of this paper I discuss the reasons for this measure and argue that they are not compatible with a nonspeciesist approach. Then, I claim that if we (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  39. Oscar Horta (2010). What is Speciesism? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 23 (3):243-266.
    In spite of the considerable literature nowadays existing on the issue of the moral exclusion of nonhuman animals, there is still work to be done concerning the characterization of the conceptual framework with which this question can be appraised. This paper intends to tackle this task. It starts by defining speciesism as the unjustified disadvantageous consideration or treatment of those who are not classified as belonging to a certain species. It then clarifies some common misunderstandings concerning what this means. Next, (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  40. James Hughes (2004). Humanism for Personhood: Against Human-Racism. Free Inquiry 24.
    To the degree that we succeed in our campaign for personhood over human-racism we will fulfill the dreams of our humanist forebears.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  41. Patrick Kain (2010). Duties Regarding Animals. In Lara Denis (ed.), Kant's Metaphysics of Morals: A Critical Guide. Cambridge University Press 210--233.
    A better appreciation of Kant’s commitments in a variety of disciplines reveals Kant had a deeper understanding of human and non-human animals than generally recognized, and this sheds new light on Kant’s claims about the nature and scope of moral status and helps to address, at least from Kant’s perspective, many of the familiar objections to his notorious account of “duties regarding animals.” Kant’s core principles about the nature of moral obligation structure his thoughts about the moral status of human (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  42. Frederik Kaufman (1998). Speciesism and the Argument From Misfortune. Journal of Applied Philosophy 15 (2):155–163.
    Is there a morally relevant difference between a brain‐damaged human being and a nonhuman animal at the same cognitive and emotional level to justify, say, performing medical experiments on the animal but not the human being? Some hold that the misfortune of the human being allows us to distinguish between them. I consider the nature of misfortunate and argue that an appeal to misfortune fails to distinguish between the human being and the nonhuman animal when the treatment at issue is (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  43. J. Kiriazis & C. Slobodchikoff (1997). Anthropomorphism and the Study of Animal Language. In R. Mitchell, Nicholas S. Thompson & H. L. Miles (eds.), Anthropomorphism, Anecdotes, and Animals. Suny Press 365--369.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  44. Christopher Knapp (2009). Species Inegalitarianism as a Matter of Principle. Journal of Applied Philosophy 26 (2):174-189.
    Most critics of species egalitarianism point to its counter-intuitive implications in particular cases. But this argumentative strategy is vulnerable to the response that our intuitions should give way in the face of arguments showing that species egalitarianism is required by our deepest, most fundamental moral principles. In this article, I develop an argument against deontological versions of species egalitarianism on its own terms. Appealing to the fundamental moral ideal of proportionality, I show that deontological species egalitarianism is morally objectionable as (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  45. Adam Kolber (2002). Standing Upright: The Moral and Legal Standing of Humans and Other Apes. Stanford Law Review 54:163-204.
    The law typically treats great apes and other non-humans as property and not as persons. This is so, even though great apes have cognitive abilities that exceed those of some mentally-deficient humans. Nevertheless, these humans are entitled to the full range of personhood rights, while apes are entitled to none of them. Without attempting to resolve this discrepancy, I suggest more modestly that those rights we do extend to apes under the Animal Welfare Act might be more easily safeguarded if (...)
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  46. Rahul Kumar (2008). Permissible Killing and the Irrelevance of Being Human. Journal of Ethics 12 (1):57-80.
    This is a review essay of Jeff McMahan's recent book The Ethics of Killing : Problems at the Margins of Life. In the first part, I lay out the central features of McMahan's account of the wrongness of killing and its implications for when it is permissible to kill. In the second part of the essay, I argue that we ought not to accept McMahan's rejection of species membership as having any bearing on whether it is permissible to kill a (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  47. Hugh LaFollette & Niall Shanks (1996). The Origin of Speciesism. Philosophy 71 (275):41-.
    Anti-vivisectionists charge that animal experimenters are speciesists people who unjustly discriminate against members of other species. Until recently most defenders of experimentation denied the charge. After the publication of `The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research' in the New England Journal of Medicine , experimenters had a more aggressive reply: `I am a speciesist. Speciesism is not merely plausible, it is essential for right conduct...'1. Most researchers now embrace Cohen's response as part of their defense of animal (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  48. Hugh LaFollette & Niall Shanks (1995). Two Models of Models in Biomedical Research. Philosophical Quarterly 45 (179):141-160.
    Biomedical researchers claim there is significant biomedical information about humans which can be discovered only through experiments on intact animal systems (AMA p. 2). Although epidemiological studies, computer simulations, clinical investigation, and cell and tissue cultures have become important weapons in the biomedical scientists' arsenal, these are primarily "adjuncts to the use of animals in research" (Sigma Xi p. 76). Controlled laboratory experiments are the core of the scientific enterprise. Biomedical researchers claim these should be conducted on intact biological systems, (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  49. Glen Mazis (2011). Human Ethics as a Violence Towards Animals: The Demonized Wolf. Spaziofilosofico, 3:291-304.
    This essay discusses how our traditional ethics may harbor assumptions that place humans in a position in which overt violence towards animals is an almost inevitable outcome since their formulation involves violence towards ourselves and our animal fellows in our cutting our embodied ties with them. The essay explores Derrida’s Animal that Therefore, I Am, in its detailing of the two discourses within European intellectual history of those who felt they were “above” animals and were not addressed by them versus (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  50. Rafe McGregor (2015). The Animal Question in Deconstruction. [REVIEW] Between the Species 17 (1):106-110.
    Review of The Animal Question in Deconstruction, edited by Lynn Turner.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
1 — 50 / 89