Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 13 (2):159-175 (1988)
|Abstract||Animal liberationists tend to divide into two mutually antagonistic camps: animal welfarists, who share a utilitarian moral outlook, and animal rightists, who presuppose a structure of basic rights. However, the gap between these groups tends to be exaggerated by their allegiance to oversimplified versions of their favored moral frameworks. For their part, animal rightists should acknowledge that rights, however basic, are also defeasible by appeals to consequences. Contrariwise, animal welfarists should recognize that rights, however derivative, are capable of constraining appeals to consequences. If both sides move to more defensible theoretical positions, their remaining differences on that level may be compatible with a broad area of convergence on practical issues. Keywords: animal welfare, animal rights, ethics CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this?|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Claire Molloy (2011). Popular Media and Animals. Palgrave Macmillan.
Mark Rowlands (2009). Animal Rights: Moral Theory and Practice. Palgrave Macmillan.
Georges Chapouthier & Jean-Claude Nouët (eds.) (1998). The Universal Declaration of Animal Rights: Comments and Intentions. Ligue Française des Droits De L'Animal.
David DeGrazia (2002). Animal Rights: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
John M. Kistler (2000). Animal Rights: A Subject Guide, Bibliography, and Internet Companion. Greenwood Press.
Marna A. Owen (2009). Animal Rights: Noble Cause or Needless Effort? Twenty-First Century Books.
Shasta Gaughen (ed.) (2005). Animal Rights. Greenhaven Press.
Kirsten Schmidt (2011). Concepts of Animal Welfare in Relation to Positions in Animal Ethics. Acta Biotheoretica 59 (2):153-171.
Added to index2010-08-19
Total downloads23 ( #60,137 of 722,752 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,247 of 722,752 )
How can I increase my downloads?