Graduate studies at Western
Ethics, Place and Environment 11 (2):181 – 189 (2008)
|Abstract||Tom Regan's four explanations of animal rights are examined and rejected as inadequate. A superior interest based account of animal rights is proposed. This derives an animal's right to freedom from harm from interests that are implicit in the conscious life of the animal. According to Tom Regan, there are four possible accounts for dealing with the issue of how animals should be treated: (1) the ?Kantian account?; (2) the ?cruelty account?; (3) the ?utilitarian account?; and (4) the ?animal rights account? (Regan, 2001, pp. 41?55). In this paper I propose to briefly survey these four accounts and argue for a fifth view, the ?interests account?, which I believe is the most reasonable of the five accounts|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Ruiping Fan (2010). How Should We Treat Animals? A Confucian Reflection. Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 9 (1):79-96.
Charles Patterson (2002). Eternal Treblinka: Our Treatment of Animals and the Holocaust. Lantern Books.
Robert Bass (2006). Undermining Indirect Duty Theories. Between the Species (6).
George S. Cave (1982). Animals, Heidegger, and the Right to Life. Environmental Ethics 4 (3):249-254.
Marna A. Owen (2009). Animal Rights: Noble Cause or Needless Effort? Twenty-First Century Books.
Alasdair Cochrane (2011). An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory. Palgrave Macmillan.
David Sztybel (2006). Can the Treatment of Animals Be Compared to the Holocaust? Ethics and the Environment 11 (1):97-132.
Joel Marks (2010). Live Free or Die. [REVIEW] Animal Law 17 (1):243-250.
Marc Bekoff (2008). Increasing Our Compassion Footprint: The Animals' Manifesto. Zygon 43 (4):771-781.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads15 ( #86,055 of 739,466 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,680 of 739,466 )
How can I increase my downloads?