Inquiry 22 (1-4):171 – 188 (1979)
|Abstract||It has been argued that if non-human animals had rights we should be obliged to defend them against predators. I contend that this either does not follow, follows in the abstract but not in practice, or is not absurd. We should defend non-humans against large or unusual dangers, when we can, but should not claim so much authority as to regulate all the relationships of wild things. Some non-human animals are members of our society, and the rhetoric of 'the land as a community' is an attempt, paralleling that of humanism, to create the moral ideal of Earth's Household. But wild animals should be considered as Nozick's 'independents' and have correspondingly fewer claims on our assistance than members of our society. They still have some claims, often strong ones.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Jac A. A. Swart (2004). The Wild Animal as a Research Animal. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 17 (2):181-197.
Scott Lehmann (1981). Do Wildernesses Have Rights? Environmental Ethics 3 (2):129-146.
Jac Swart & Jozef Keulartz (2011). Wild Animals in Our Backyard. A Contextual Approach to the Intrinsic Value of Animals. Acta Biotheoretica 59 (2):185-200.
Aaron Simmons (2009). Animals, Predators, the Right to Life, and the Duty to Save Lives. Ethics and the Environment 14 (1):pp. 15-27.
Robert W. Loftin (1985). The Medical Treatment of Wild Animals. Environmental Ethics 7 (3):231-239.
Eileen O'Rourke (2000). The Reintroduction and Reinterpretation of the Wild. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 13 (1):144-165.
Thomas Auxter (1979). The Right Not to Be Eaten. Inquiry 22 (1-4):221 – 230.
Joel Marks (2010). Live Free or Die. [REVIEW] Animal Law 17 (1):243-250.
Added to index2009-03-05
Total downloads17 ( #71,101 of 549,088 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,317 of 549,088 )
How can I increase my downloads?