Ethics and the Environment 10 (1):1-17 (2005)
|Abstract||: Despite the fact that feminists have compellingly drawn connections between traditional notions of reason and the oppression of women and nature, many animal ethicists fail to deeply incorporate these insights. After detailing the links between reason and the oppression of women and animals, I argue that the work of philosophers such as Tom Regan and Peter Singer fails to reflect that what feminists have called is not the mere inclusion of emotion, but a recognition of the inherent continuity between the two. To ignore this continuity, I conclude, risks reinscribing the very suffering we seek to eliminate|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Jenny Teichman (2003). Good for and Good About. Philosophy 78 (1):115-121.
Kelly Oliver (2010). Animal Ethics: Toward an Ethics of Responsiveness. Research in Phenomenology 40 (2):267-280.
Elisa Aaltola (2010). The Anthropocentric Paradigm and the Posibility of Animal Ethics. Ethics and the Environment 15 (1):pp. 27-50.
Dale Jamieson (1998). Science, Knowledge, and Animal Minds. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 98 (1):79–102.
Stephen Thomas Newmyer (2006). Animals, Rights, and Reason in Plutarch and Modern Ethics. Routledge.
Andrew Linzey (2009). Why Animal Suffering Matters: Philosophy, Theology, and Practical Ethics. Oxford University Press.
Mark H. Bernstein (2004). Without a Tear: Our Tragic Relationship with Animals. University of Illinois Press.
Mark Rowlands (2009). Animal Rights: Moral Theory and Practice. Palgrave Macmillan.
Beth A. Dixon (1996). The Feminist Connection Between Women and Animals. Environmental Ethics 18 (2):181-194.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads32 ( #37,849 of 548,984 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,327 of 548,984 )
How can I increase my downloads?