Inquiry 22 (1-4):221 – 230 (1979)
|Abstract||The current debate over the rights of animals has not been wholly satisfactory. Those who believe that animals have no rights argue that it is not conceivable that creatures without human capabilities could possess rights. Those who defend the rights of animals argue that such claims are 'speciesist', resemble racist and sexist claims, and bear the marks of moral complacency. Both sides have assumed that the issue can ultimately be settled through an analysis of the concept of rights in isolation from other factors. In this paper I argue that the issue can be discussed more satisfactorily in the context of classical teleological ethical theory which provides a basis for favoring the maximum development of all the more highly organized beings consistent with the diversification of nature. The conclusion is that wild animals have the right not to be eaten and that we should discontinue the wasteful practice of domesticating animals for the purpose of meat production.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Tom L. Beauchamp (1997). Opposing Views on Animal Experimentation: Do Animals Have Rights? Ethics and Behavior 7 (2):113 – 121.
Evelyn B. Pluhar (1988). When is It Morally Acceptable to Kill Animals? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 1 (3):211-224.
Tom Regan (1997). The Rights of Humans and Other Animals. Ethics and Behavior 7 (2):103 – 111.
Peter Carruthers (1992). The Animals Issue: Moral Theory in Practice. Cambridge University Press.
Stephen R. L. Clark (1979). The Rights of Wild Things. Inquiry 22 (1-4):171 – 188.
Joel Marks (2010). Live Free or Die. [REVIEW] Animal Law 17 (1):243-250.
Jonathan Harrison (2008). The Vagaries of Vegetarianism. Ratio 21 (3):286-299.
H. J. McCloskey (1979). Moral Rights and Animals. Inquiry 22 (1-4):23 – 54.
Added to index2009-03-05
Total downloads8 ( #124,608 of 556,912 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,931 of 556,912 )
How can I increase my downloads?