Online research in philosophy

: Taken at face value, pet cloning may seem at best a frivolous practice, costly both to the cloned pet's health and its owner's pocket. At worst, its critics say, it is misguided and unhealthy—a way of exploiting grief to the detriment of the animal, its owner, and perhaps even animal welfare in general. But if the great pains we are willing to take to clone Fido raise the status of companion animals in the public eye, then the practice might be defensible.

Plutarch is virtually unique in surviving classical authors in arguing that animals are rational and sentient, and in concluding that human beings must take notice of their interests. Stephen Newmyer explores Plutarch's three animal-related treatises, as well as passages from his other ethical treatises, which argue that non-human animals are rational and therefore deserve to fall within the sphere of human moral concern. Newmyer shows that some of the arguments Plutarch raises strikingly foreshadow those found in the works of such prominent animal rights philosophers as Peter Singer and Tom Regan in maintaining that non-human animals are the sorts of creatures that have intellectual qualities that cause them to be proper objects of man's concern, and have interests and desires that entitle them to respect from their human counterparts. This volume is groundbreaking in viewing Plutarch's views not only in the context of ancient philosophical and ethical thought, but in its place, generally overlooked, in the history of speculation on human-animal relations, and in pointing out how remarkably Plutarch differs from such predominantly anti-animal thinkers as the Stoics.

Adams et.al (2007) suggested a predictive model based on the dimensions of empathy, attachment and sexual attraction to differentiate between zoophilia and bestiality (animal sexual abuse). This paper develops this model by considering the role of anthropomorphism. It is known that anthropomorphism changes ‘normal’ care giving practices of pet owners (White, 2007). We suggest that anthropomorphism may have a significant effect on the human – animal bond by blurring the lines between sensual and sexual feelings (zoophilia) for a family pet (Adams, 2006). Karpman (1961) describes zoophilia as human sexual excitement through stroking or fondling animals. Serpell (1996) suggests many pets share the same bed as their owner, sleep on their lap and interact with their owner in an affectionate and intimate way, which may or may not be sexually arousing to the owner. Attachment bonds in human dyads are often characteristically dependent on engaging in physical intimacy and body contact (Prato-Previde, Fallani, & Valsecchi, 2006). The flexibility in the human sexual response system, highlighted by Diamond (2006) considers that sexual orientation and sexual attraction are variable and can be influenced by attachment. This attraction can be irrespective of a predisposing sexual orientation. Thus, the formation of an attachment bond can lead a predisposed heterosexual to become sexually attracted to a same sex person. Likewise, where anthropomorphic attitudes are high and attachment bonds are formed with an animal, these could develop into a more sexually attractive relationship on the part of the human. This is an extension of the erotic plasticity of the human sexual response and may or may not be acted upon in any manner that compromises animal welfare. Therefore we suggest that zoophilia is a physical and sensual dimension of human-pet relationship occasionally overflowing accepted boundaries, rather than a deliberate calculated process of sexual deviance or animal abuse.

Most pet owners are extremely devoted to their pets, often considering them members of the family. This devotion can carry over into the owner’s will or trust, leaving gifts for their pets in such instruments. A will or trust involving the pet can be important to the veterinarian because, for example, a trust could specify whether and under what circumstances a medical procedure or euthanasia may take place. This article provides an overview of pet trusts, including historical background and current developments, pet trust basics, and a discussion of key concerns for veterinarians relating to pet trusts.

'Animals sell papers' : the value of animal stories -- Media and animal debates : welfare, rights, 'animal lovers' and terrorists -- Stars : animal performers -- Wild : authenticity and getting closer to nature -- Experimental : the visibility of experimental animals -- Farmed : selling animal products -- Hunted : recreational killing -- Monsters : horrors and moral panics -- Beginning at the end : re-imagining human-animal relations.

This thought-provoking book will ask what it is to be human, what to be animal, and what are the natures of the relationships between them. This is accomplished with philosophical and ethical discussions, scientific evidence and dynamic theoretical approaches. Attitudes to Animals will also encourage us to think not only of our relationships to non-human animals, but also of those to other, human, animals. This book provides a foundation that the reader can use to make ethical choices about animals. It will challenge readers to question their current views, attitudes and perspectives on animals, nature and development of the human-animal relationship. Human perspectives on the human-animal relationships reflect what we have learned, together with spoken and unspoken attitudes and assumptions, from our families, societies, media, education and employment.

Machine generated contents note: ContentsIntroduction: A Change of Heart1. What's behind Animal Advocacy? -- 2. The Love of a Dog: Of Pets and Puppy Mills, Mixed-Breeds and Shelters -- 3. The Animal on Your Plate: Farmers, Vegans, and Locavores -- 4. Where the Wild Things Ought to Be: Sanctuaries, Zoos, and Exotic Pets -- 5. From Object to Subject: Animals in Scientific Research -- 6. Clothing Ourselves in Stories of Love: Affect and Animal AdvocacyConclusion: Trouble in the PackAcknowledgments -- Notes -- Bibliography -- Index.

I explore how some aspects of Foucoult’s work on power can be applied to human/animal power relations. First, I argue that because animals behave as “beings that react” and can respond in different ways to human actions, in principle at least, Foucoult’s work can offer insights into human/animal power relations. However, many of these relations fall into the category of “domination,” in which animals are unable to respond. Second, I examine different kinds of human power practices, in particular, ways in which humans construct animal constitutions and animal subjectivities. Finally, I use a case study of a pet cat to show how such power practices may come together in a single instance.

My primary concern will be to cast light upon the relation between animal guardians ('pet owners') and pets as a deep relation. I will proceed with a degree of indirectness by explaining why animal guardians can have an epistemically-privileged position when it comes to end-of-life decisions concerning pets. My contention is that they are best placed to grasp the relevant narrative considerations upon which end-of-life deliberation in marginal cases ought to depend. Such narrative-appreciation is built into the practice of treating animals as pets. By virtue of having such a narrative appreciation, animal guardians can be best placed to grasp the life-role of pain and suffering.

The concepts of animal, human, and rights are all part of a philosophical tradition that trades on foreclosing the animal, animality, and animals. Rather than looking to qualities or capacities that make animals the same as or different from humans, I investigate the relationship between the human and the animal. To insist, as animal rights and welfare advocates do, that our ethical obligations to animals are based on their similarities to us reinforces the type of humanism that leads to treating animals—and other people—as subordinates. But, if recent philosophies of difference are any indication, we can acknowledge difference without acknowledging our dependence on animals, or without including animals in ethical considerations. Animal ethics requires rethinking both identity and difference by focusing on relationships and responsivity. My aim is not only to suggest an animal ethics but also to show how ethics itself is transformed by considering animals.