Online research in philosophy

$69.75 used $110.23 new $115.00 direct from Amazon Amazon page

Reading list | Discuss | Edit | Categorize |

My bibliography

Export citation

Uriah Kriegel (forthcoming). Animal Rights: A Non‐Consequentialist Approach. In K. Petrus & M. Wild (eds.), Animal Minds and Animal Morals.

It is a curious fact about mainstream discussions of animal rights that they are dominated by consequentialist defenses thereof, when consequentialism in general has been on the wane in other areas of moral philosophy. In this paper, I describe an alternative, non‐consequentialist ethical framework (combining Kantian and virtue‐ethical elements) and argue that it grants (conscious) animals more expansive rights than consequentialist proponents of animal rights typically grant. The cornerstone of this non‐consequentialist framework is the thought that the virtuous agent is s/he who has the stable and dominating disposition to treat all conscious animals, including non‐human conscious animals, as ends and not mere means.

Normative Ethics

Reading list | Discuss | Edit | Categorize |

My bibliography

Export citation

Angus Taylor (1996). Animal Rights and Human Needs. Environmental Ethics 18 (3):249-264.

The idea that animal rights can be married to environmental ethics is still a minority opinion. The land ethic of Aldo Leopold, as interpreted by J. Baird Callicott, remains fundamentally at odds with the ascription of substantial rights to (nonhuman) animals. Similarly, Laura Westra’s notion of “respectful hostility,” which attempts to reconcile a holistic environmental ethic with “respect” for animals, has no place for animal rights.In this paper, I argue that only by ascribing rights to sentient animals can an environmental ethic avoid an unacceptable degree of anthropocentrism because only a rights-based environmental ethic can prohibit humans from significantly interfering with sentient animals when human vital needs are not at stake. A rights view that permits significant interference when it is required for the satisfaction of human vital needs avoids problems that otherwise plague a rights view. The “vital-needs rights view” reconciles the rights of animals with the satisfaction of human vital needs—including the vital need to have a flourishing natural environment—suggesting a possible alliance between animal rights and deep ecology and revealing the connections among vital needs, capitalism, and environmental degradation.

Reading list | Discuss | Edit | Categorize |

My bibliography

Export citation

David Sztybel (2001). Animal Rights: Autonomy and Redundancy. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 14 (3):259-273.

Even if animal liberation were to be adopted, would rights for animals be redundant – or even deleterious? Such an objection, most prominently voiced by L. W. Sumner and Paul W. Taylor, is misguided, risks an anthropocentric and anthropomorphic conception of autonomy and freedom, overly agent-centered rights conceptions, and an overlooking of the likely harmful consequences of positing rights for humans but not for nonhuman animals. The objection in question also stems from an overly pessimistic construal of autonomy-infringements thought to result from extending rights to animals, and also, of confusions that supposedly may ensue from ascribing animal rights. Whether or not a case for animal liberation and/or animal rights can cogently be made, the redundancy-or-worse objection to animal rights need pose no barrier.

Autonomy in Applied Ethics in Applied Ethics

Reading list | Discuss | Edit | Categorize |

My bibliography

Export citation

| Other links: springerlink.com dx.doi.org | Scholar | At my library | More options ...

Mark Rowlands (1998). Animal Rights: A Philosophical Defence. St. Martin's Press.

The question of the nature and extent of our moral obligations to non-human animals has featured prominently in recent moral debate. This book defends the novel position that a contradictarian moral theory can be used to justify the claim that animals possess a substantial and wide-ranging set of moral rights. Critiquing the rival accounts of Peter Singer and Tom Regan, this study shows how an influential form of the social contract idea can be extended to make sense of the concept of animal rights.

$67.50 used $134.99 new $135.00 direct from Amazon Amazon page

Reading list | Discuss | Edit | Categorize |

My bibliography

Export citation

Evelyn B. Pluhar (1995). Beyond Prejudice: The Moral Significance of Human and Nonhuman Animals. Duke University Press.

"This book joins the illustrious company of Peter Singer's "Animal Liberation" and Tom Regan's "The Case for Animal Rights" as one of the most important books ...

$7.47 used $26.68 new $26.95 direct from Amazon Amazon page

Reading list | Discuss | Edit | Categorize |

My bibliography

Export citation

David DeGrazia (2002). Animal Rights: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.

This volume provides a general overview of the basic ethical and philosophical issues of animal rights. It asks questions such as: Do animals have moral rights? If so, what does this mean? What sorts of mental lives do animals have, and how should we understand welfare? By presenting models for understanding animals' moral status and rights, and examining their mental lives and welfare, David DeGrazia explores the implications for how we should treat animals in connection with our diet, zoos, and research. Animal Rights distinguishes itself by combining intellectual rigor with accessibility, offering a distinct moral voice with a non-polemical tone.

$5.10 used $7.01 new $7.79 direct from Amazon Amazon page

Reading list | Discuss | Edit | Categorize |

My bibliography

Export citation

Mark Rowlands (2009). Animal Rights: Moral Theory and Practice. Palgrave Macmillan.

Animal rights and moral theories -- Arguing for one's species -- Utilitarianism and animals : Peter Singer's case for animal liberation -- Tom Regan : animal rights as natural rights -- Virtue ethics and animals -- Contractarianism and animal rights -- Animal minds.

$74.18 used $93.82 new $105.00 direct from Amazon Amazon page

Reading list | Discuss | Edit | Categorize |

My bibliography

Export citation

Cass R. Sunstein & Martha Craven Nussbaum (2004). Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions. Oxford University Press.

Cass Sunstein and Martha Nussbaum bring together an all-star cast of contributors to explore the legal and political issues that underlie the campaign for animal rights and the opposition to it. Addressing ethical questions about ownership, protection against unjustified suffering, and the ability of animals to make their own choices free from human control, the authors offer numerous different perspectives on animal rights and animal welfare. They show that whatever one's ultimate conclusions, the relationship between human beings and nonhuman animals is being fundamentally rethought. This book offers a state-of-the-art treatment of that rethinking.

$9.95 used $11.35 new $14.34 direct from Amazon Amazon page

Reading list | Discuss | Edit | Categorize |

My bibliography

Export citation

H. J. McCloskey (1979). Moral Rights and Animals. Inquiry 22 (1-4):23 – 54.

In Section I, the purely conceptual issue as to whether animals other than human beings, all or some, may possess rights is examined. This is approached via a consideration of the concept of a moral right, and by way of examining the claims of sentience, consciousness, capacities for pleasure and pain, having desires, possessing interests, self-consciousness, rationality in various senses. It is argued that only beings possessed actually or potentially of the capacity to be morally self-determining can be possessors of rights. In Section II, normative questions concerning the rights animals might possess if they were to be capable of possessing rights are discussed. The approach followed is that of considering the kinds of argument advanced in support of human rights, and whether these arguments, and the rights they are claimed to establish, are transferable to animals, and whether there are or might be specifically animal rights. In Section III the question of what is or could be the goal of one who recognizes and seeks to respect all rights, animal and human, is raised. In particular, the issue as to whether a goal of maximizing the satisfaction of rights could remain a coherent one if animal rights are acknowledged, is explored.