Search results for 'Animal Emotionality' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Sort by:
  1. M. Mendl & E. S. Paul (2004). Consciousness, Emotion and Animal Welfare: Insights From Cognitive Science. Animal Welfare 13:17- 25.score: 84.0
  2. F. Wemelsfelder (2001). The Inside and Outside Aspects of Consciousness: Complementary Approaches to the Study of Animal Emotion. Animal Welfare Supplement 10:129- 139.score: 84.0
  3. José M. R. Delgado (1982). Animal and Human Emotionality. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (3):425.score: 72.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Marian S. Dawkins (2001). Who Needs Consciousness? Animal Welfare Supplement 10:19- 29.score: 66.0
  5. B. M. Spruijt (2001). How the Hierarchical Organization of the Brain and Increasing Cognitive Abilities May Result in Consciousness. Animal Welfare Supplement 10:77- 87.score: 66.0
  6. Beth Dixon (2001). Animal Emotion. Ethics and the Environment 6 (2):22-30.score: 30.0
    : Recent work in the area of ethics and animals suggests that it is philosophically legitimate to ascribe emotions to nonhuman animals. Furthermore, it is sometimes argued that emotionality is a morally relevant psychological state shared by humans and nonhumans. What is missing from the philosophical literature that makes reference to emotions in nonhuman animals is an attempt to clarify and defend some particular account of the nature of emotion, and the role that emotions play in a characterization of (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Uriah Kriegel (2013). Animal Rights: A Non‐Consequentialist Approach. In K. Petrus & M. Wild (eds.), Animal Minds and Animal Ethics. Transcript.score: 21.0
    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 (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Erika Ruonakoski (2007). The Study of Animal Behavior and Phenomenology. In Christian Lotz & Corinne Painter (eds.), Phenomenology and the Non-Human Animal. Springer.score: 21.0
    The article investigates the possibilities of phenomenology to contribute to the study of animal behaviour, and, respectively, asks how and on what grounds phenomenology can benefit from the research done within empirical sciences. The theoretical point of departure is Maurice Merleau-Ponty's The Structure of Behavior and the essay "The Metaphysical in Man".
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Dennis Des Chene (2006). Animal as Category : Bayle's "Rorarius&Quot;. In Justin E. H. Smith (ed.), The Problem of Animal Generation in Early Modern Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.score: 21.0
    A study of the problem of animal souls as treated by Pierre Bayle in his article on Rorarius in the Dictionnaire. Early modern philosophers, if they rejected dualism, tended—as Bayle shows—to be driven either to materialism or to panpsychism.
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. A. S. Franklin, B. K. Tranter & R. D. White (2001). Explaining Support for Animal Rights: A Comparison of Two Recent Approaches to Humans, Nonhuman Animals, and Postmodernity. Society and Animals 9 (2):127-144.score: 19.0
    Questions on "animal rights" in a cross-national survey conducted in 1993 provide an opportunity to compare the applicability to this issue of two theories of the socio-political changes summed up in "postmodernity": Inglehart's (1997) thesis of "postmaterialist values" and Franklin's (1999) synthesis of theories of late modernity. Although Inglehart seems not to have addressed human-nonhuman animal relations, it is reasonable to apply his theory of changing values under conditions of "existential security" to "animal rights." Inglehart's postmaterialism thesis (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Elisa Aaltola (2011). The Philosophy Behind the Movement: Animal Studies Vs. Animal Rights. Society and Animals 19 (4):393-406.score: 19.0
    Recently, many pro-animal thinkers have expressed critical views on the animal rights movement. In particular, the movement has been criticized for being philosophically uninformed, politically regressive, and practically unpersuasive. This paper investigates these criticisms and seeks to map out the philosophy behind the grassroots animal rights movement, specifically. It concludes that the criticism presented by animal studies scholars is often misplaced due to a lack of understanding of the philosophical notions within the movement, but that the (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Christiane Bailey (2011). The Genesis of Existentials in Animal Life: Heidegger's Appropriation of Aristotle's Ontology of Life. Heidegger Circle Proceedings 1 (1):199-212.score: 18.0
    Paper presented at the Heidegger Circle 2011. Although Aristotle’s influence on young Heidegger’s thought has been studied at length, such studies have almost exclusively focused on his interpretation of Aristotle’s ethics, physics and metaphysics. I will rather address Heidegger’s appropriation of Aristotle’s ontology of life. Focusing on recently published or recently translated courses of the mid 20’s (mainly SS 1924, WS 1925-26 and SS 1926), I hope to uncover an important aspect of young Heidegger’s thought left unconsidered: namely, that Dasein’s (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Peter Carruthers (2005). Why the Question of Animal Consciousness Might Not Matter Very Much. Philosophical Psychology 18 (1):83-102.score: 18.0
    According to higher-order thought accounts of phenomenal consciousness it is unlikely that many non-human animals undergo phenomenally conscious experiences. Many people believe that this result would have deep and far-reaching consequences. More specifically, they believe that the absence of phenomenal consciousness from the rest of the animal kingdom must mark a radical and theoretically significant divide between ourselves and other animals, with important implications for comparative psychology. I shall argue that this belief is mistaken. Since phenomenal consciousness might be (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Marian S. Dawkins (1990). From an Animal's Point of View: Motivation, Fitness, and Animal Welfare. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13 (1):1-9.score: 18.0
    To study animal welfare empirically we need an objective basis for deciding when an animal is suffering. Suffering includes a wide range ofunpleasant emotional states such as fear, boredom, pain, and hunger. Suffering has evolved as a mechanism for avoiding sources ofdanger and threats to fitness. Captive animals often suffer in situations in which they are prevented from doing something that they are highly motivated to do. The an animal is prepared to pay to attain or to (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Colin Allen (2005). Deciphering Animal Pain. In Murat Aydede (ed.), Pain: New Essays on Its Nature and the Methodology of Its Study. Cambridge MA: Bradford Book/MIT Press.score: 18.0
    In this paper we1 assess the potential for research on nonhuman animals to address questions about the phenomenology of painful experiences. Nociception, the basic capacity for sensing noxious stimuli, is widespread in the animal kingdom. Even rel- atively primitive animals such as leeches and sea slugs possess nociceptors, neurons that are functionally specialized for sensing noxious stimuli (Walters 1996). Vertebrate spinal cords play a sophisticated role in processing and modulating nociceptive signals, providing direct control of some motor responses to (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Donald R. Griffin & G. B. Speck (2004). New Evidence of Animal Consciousness. Animal Cognition 7 (1):5-18.score: 18.0
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Adam Shriver (forthcoming). The Asymmetrical Contributions of Pleasure and Pain To Animal Welfare (Penultimate Draft). Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics.score: 18.0
    Utilitarianism, the ethical doctrine that holds in its most basic form that right actions are those that maximize pleasure and minimize pain, has been at the center of many of the ethical debates around animal welfare. The most well-known utilitarian of our time, Peter Singer, is widely credited with having sparked the animal welfare movement of the past 35+ years, using utilitarian reasoning to argue against using animals in invasive research that we aren’t willing to perform on humans. (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. José Luis Bermúdez (2007). Thinking Without Words: An Overview for Animal Ethics. [REVIEW] Journal of Ethics 11 (3):319 - 335.score: 18.0
    In Thinking without Words I develop a philosophical framework for treating some animals and human infants as genuine thinkers. This paper outlines the aspects of this account that are most relevant to those working in animal ethics. There is a range of different levels of cognitive sophistication in different animal species, in addition to limits to the types of thought available to non-linguistic creatures, and it may be important for animal ethicists to take this into account in (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Matteo Mameli & Lisa Bortolotti (2006). Animal Rights, Animal Minds, and Human Mindreading. Journal of Medical Ethics 32 (2):84-89.score: 18.0
    Do non-human animals have rights? The answer to this question depends on whether animals have morally relevant mental properties. Mindreading is the human activity of ascribing mental states to other organisms. Current knowledge about the evolution and cognitive structure of mindreading indicates that human ascriptions of mental states to non-human animals are very inaccurate. The accuracy of human mindreading can be improved with the help of scientific studies of animal minds. But the scientific studies by themselves do not by (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. David DeGrazia (2002). Animal Rights: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.score: 18.0
    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, (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Marc Bekoff (1997). Deep Ethology, Animal Rights, and the Great Ape/Animal Project: Resisting Speciesism and Expanding the Community of Equals. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 10 (3):269-296.score: 18.0
    In this essay I argue that the evolutionary and comparative study of nonhuman animal (hereafter animal) cognition in a wide range of taxa by cognitive ethologists can readily inform discussions about animal protection and animal rights. However, while it is clear that there is a link between animal cognitive abilities and animal pain and suffering, I agree with Jeremy Bentham who claimed long ago the real question does not deal with whether individuals can think (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Bernard E. Rollin (2007). Animal Mind: Science, Philosophy, and Ethics. [REVIEW] Journal of Ethics 11 (3):253-274.score: 18.0
    Although 20th-century empiricists were agnostic about animal mind and consciousness, this was not the case for their historical ancestors – John Locke, David Hume, Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, and, of course, Charles Darwin and George John Romanes. Given the dominance of the Darwinian paradigm of evolutionary continuity, one would not expect belief in animal mind to disappear. That it did demonstrates that standard accounts of how scientific hypotheses are overturned – i.e., by empirical disconfirmation or by exposure (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Gregory R. Peterson (2003). Being Conscious of Marc Bekoff: Thinking of Animal Self-Consciousness. Zygon 38 (2):247-256.score: 18.0
    The preceding article by Marc Bekoff reveals much about our current understanding of animal self-consciousness and its implications. It also reveals how much more there is to be said and considered. This response briefly examines animal self-consciousness from scientific, moral, and theological perspectives. As Bekoff emphasizes, self-consciousness is not one thing but many. Consequently, our moral relationship to animals is not simply one based on a graded hierarchy of abilities. Furthermore, the complexity of animal self-awareness can serve (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Cameron Buckner (forthcoming). The Semantic Problem(s) with Research on Animal Mindreading. Mind and Language.score: 18.0
    Philosophers have worried that research on animal mind-reading faces a “logical problem”: the difficulty of experimentally determining whether animals represent mental states (e.g. seeing) or merely the observable evidence for those states (e.g. line-of-gaze). The most impressive attempt to confront this problem has been mounted recently by Robert Lurz (2009, 2011). However, Lurz’ approach faces its own logical problem, revealing this challenge to be a special case of the more general problem of distal content. Moreover, participants in this debate (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Donald R. Griffin (2001). Animal Minds: Beyond Cognition to Consciousness. University of Chicago Press.score: 18.0
    Finally, in four chapters greatly expanded for this edition, Griffin considers the latest scientific research on animal consciousness, pro and con, and...
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Stephen St C. Bostock (1993). Zoos and Animal Rights: The Ethics of Keeping Animals. Routledge.score: 18.0
    Zoos and animal rights seem utterly opposed to each other. In this controversial and timely book, Stephen Bostock argues that they can develop a more harmonious relationship. He examines the diverse ethical and technical issues involved, including human cruelty, human domination over animals, the well-being of wild animals outside their natural habitat, and the nature of wild and domestic animals. In his analysis, Bostock draws attention to the areas which give rise to misconceptions. This book explores the long history (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Nancy M. Williams (2008). Affected Ignorance and Animal Suffering: Why Our Failure to Debate Factory Farming Puts Us at Moral Risk. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 21 (4):371-384.score: 18.0
    It is widely recognized that our social and moral environments influence our actions and belief formations. We are never fully immune to the effects of cultural membership. What is not clear, however, is whether these influences excuse average moral agents who fail to scrutinize conventional norms. In this paper, I argue that the lack of extensive public debate about factory farming and, its corollary, extreme animal suffering, is probably due, in part, to affected ignorance. Although a complex phenomenon because (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Colin Allen & Marc Bekoff (2007). Animal Minds, Cognitive Ethology, and Ethics. Journal of Ethics 11 (3):299-317.score: 18.0
    Our goal in this paper is to provide enough of an account of the origins of cognitive ethology and the controversy surrounding it to help ethicists to gauge for themselves how to balance skepticism and credulity about animal minds when communicating with scientists. We believe that ethicists’ arguments would benefit from better understanding of the historical roots of ongoing controversies. It is not appropriate to treat some widely reported results in animal cognition as if their interpretations are a (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Gary E. Varner (1998). In Nature's Interests?: Interests, Animal Rights, and Environmental Ethics. Oxford University Press.score: 18.0
    This book offers a powerful response to what Varner calls the "two dogmas of environmental ethics"--the assumptions that animal rights philosophies and anthropocentric views are each antithetical to sound environmental policy. Allowing that every living organism has interests which ought, other things being equal, to be protected, Varner contends that some interests take priority over others. He defends both a sentientist principle giving priority to the lives of organisms with conscious desires and an anthropocentric principle giving priority to (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Kelly Oliver (2010). Animal Ethics: Toward an Ethics of Responsiveness. Research in Phenomenology 40 (2):267-280.score: 18.0
    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 (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Lisa Guenther (2007). Le Flair Animal: Levinas and the Possibility of Animal Friendship. PhaenEx 2 (2):216-238.score: 18.0
    In Otherwise than Being, Levinas writes that the alterity of the Other escapes “le flair animal,” or the animal’s sense of smell. This paper puts pressure on the strong human-animal distinction that Levinas makes by considering the possibility that, while non-human animals may not respond to the alterity of the Other in the way that Levinas describes as responsibility, animal sensibility plays a key role in a relation to Others that Levinas does not discuss at length: (...)
    Direct download (14 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. John M. Kistler (2002). People Promoting and People Opposing Animal Rights: In Their Own Words. Greenwood Press.score: 18.0
    Explores the many issues surrounding the animal rights and animal welfare movements through personal interview responses from rights activists.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Bernard E. Rollin (2011). Animal Pain: What It is and Why It Matters. [REVIEW] Journal of Ethics 15 (4):425-437.score: 18.0
    The basis of having a direct moral obligation to an entity is that what we do to that entity matters to it. The ability to experience pain is a sufficient condition for a being to be morally considerable. But the ability to feel pain is not a necessary condition for moral considerability. Organisms could have possibly evolved so as to be motivated to flee danger or injury or to eat or drink not by pain, but by “pangs of pleasure” that (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Krzysztof Saja (2013). The Moral Footprint of Animal Products. Agriculture and Human Values 30 (2):193–202.score: 18.0
    Most ethical discussions about diet are focused on the justification of specific kinds of products rather than an individual assessment of the moral footprint of eating products of certain animal species. This way of thinking is represented in the typical division of four dietary attitudes. There are vegans, vegetarians, welfarists and ordinary meat-eaters. However, the common “all or nothing” discussions between meat-eaters, vegans and vegetarians bypass very important factors in assessing dietary habits. I argue that if we want to (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Bernard E. Rollin (2006). The Regulation of Animal Research and the Emergence of Animal Ethics: A Conceptual History. [REVIEW] Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 27 (4):285-304.score: 18.0
    The history of the regulation of animal research is essentially the history of the emergence of meaningful social ethics for animals in society. Initially, animal ethics concerned itself solely with cruelty, but this was seen as inadequate to late 20th-century concerns about animal use. The new social ethic for animals was quite different, and its conceptual bases are explored in this paper. The Animal Welfare Act of 1966 represented a very minimal and in many ways incoherent (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. S. Kuczaj, K. Tranel, M. Trone & H. Hamner Hill (2001). Are Animals Capable of Deception or Empathy? Implications for Animal Consciousness and Animal Welfare. Animal Welfare. Special Issue 10:161- 173.score: 18.0
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Aaron Garrett, Richard Dean, Humphrey Primatt, John Oswald & Thomas Young (eds.) (1713/2000). Animal Rights and Souls in the Eighteenth Century. Thoemmes Press.score: 18.0
    The publication of 'Animal Rights and Souls in the 18th Century' will be welcomed by everyone interested in the development of the modern animal liberation movement, as well as by those who simply want to savour the work of enlightenment thinkers pushing back the boundaries of both science and ethics. At last these long out-of-print texts are again available to be read and enjoyed - and what texts they are! Gems like Bougeant's witty reductio of the Christian view (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Yew-Kwang Ng (1995). Towards Welfare Biology: Evolutionary Economics of Animal Consciousness and Suffering. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 10 (3):255-285.score: 18.0
    Welfare biology is the study of living things and their environment with respect to their welfare (defined as net happiness, or enjoyment minus suffering). Despite difficulties of ascertaining and measuring welfare and relevancy to normative issues, welfare biology is a positive science. Evolutionary economics and population dynamics are used to help answer basic questions in welfare biology: Which species are affective sentients capable of welfare? Do they enjoy positive or negative welfare? Can their welfare be dramatically increased? Under plausible axioms, (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Giorgio Agamben (2004). The Open: Man and Animal. Stanford University Press.score: 18.0
    The end of human history is an event that has been foreseen or announced by both messianics and dialecticians. But who is the protagonist of that history that is coming—or has come—to a close? What is man? How did he come on the scene? And how has he maintained his privileged place as the master of, or first among, the animals? In The Open, contemporary Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben considers the ways in which the “human” has been thought of as (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. Paola Cavalieri (2001). The Animal Question: Why Nonhuman Animals Deserve Human Rights. Oxford University Press.score: 18.0
    How much do animals matter--morally? Can we keep considering them as second class beings, to be used merely for our benefit? Or, should we offer them some form of moral egalitarianism? Inserting itself into the passionate debate over animal rights, this fascinating, provocative work by renowned scholar Paola Cavalieri advances a radical proposal: that we extend basic human rights to the nonhuman animals we currently treat as "things." Cavalieri first goes back in time, tracing the roots of the debate (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Marna A. Owen (2009). Animal Rights: Noble Cause or Needless Effort? Twenty-First Century Books.score: 18.0
    Discusses the history of animal rights; laws about how animals are treated; moral issues involved in using animals in such fields as medical research and ...
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. David Fraser (2008). Understanding Animal Welfare: The Science in its Cultural Context. Wiley-Blackwell.score: 18.0
    A unique and thought-provoking exploration of the complex and often contradictory field of animal welfare science.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Michael J. Murray (2008). Nature Red in Tooth and Claw: Theism and the Problem of Animal Suffering. Oxford University Press.score: 18.0
    Problems of and explanations for evil -- Neo-cartesianism -- Animal suffering and the fall -- Nobility, flourishing, and immortality : animal pain and animal well-being -- Natural evil, nomic regularity, and animal suffering -- Chaos, order, and evolution -- Combining CDs.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Cass R. Sunstein & Martha Craven Nussbaum (eds.) (2004). Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions. Oxford University Press.score: 18.0
    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 (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. Joel Marks (2010). Innocent and Innocuous: The Case Against Animal Research. Between the Species (10):98-117.score: 18.0
    Animal research is a challenging issue for the animal advocate because of what, besides animal well-being, is considered to be at stake, namely, human health. This article seeks to vindicate the antivivisectionist position. The standard defense of animal research as promoting the overwhelming good of human health is refuted on both factual and logical, or normative-theoretical, grounds. The author then attempts to clinch the case by arguing that animal research violates a deontic principle. However, this (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. Bernard E. Rollin (2005). Reasonable Partiality and Animal Ethics. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 8 (1-2):105 - 121.score: 18.0
    Moral psychology is often ignored in ethical theory, making applied ethics difficult to achieve in practice. This is particularly true in the new field of animal ethics. One key feature of moral psychology is recognition of the moral primacy of those with whom we enjoy relationships of love and friendship – philia in Aristotles term. Although a radically new ethic for animal treatment is emerging in society, its full expression is severely limited by our exploitative uses of animals. (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. David Sztybel (2001). Animal Rights: Autonomy and Redundancy. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 14 (3):259-273.score: 18.0
    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 (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. William S. Helton (2005). Animal Expertise, Conscious or Not. Animal Cognition 8 (2):67-74.score: 18.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Kelly Oliver (2009). Animal Lessons: How They Teach Us to Be Human. Columbia University Press.score: 18.0
    Introduction: The role of animals in philosophies of man -- Part I: What's wrong with animal rights? -- The right to remain silent -- Part II: Animal pedagogy -- You are what you eat : Rousseau's cat -- Say the human responded : Herder's sheep -- Part III: Difference worthy of its name -- Hair of the dog : Derrida's and Rousseau's good taste -- Sexual difference, animal difference : Derrida's sexy silkworm -- Part IV: It's our (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. Rebecca L. Walker (2006). Human and Animal Subjects of Research: The Moral Significance of Respect Versus Welfare. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 27 (4):305-331.score: 18.0
    Human beings with diminished decision-making capacities are usually thought to require greater protections from the potential harms of research than fully autonomous persons. Animal subjects of research receive lesser protections than any human beings regardless of decision-making capacity. Paradoxically, however, it is precisely animals’ lack of some characteristic human capacities that is commonly invoked to justify using them for human purposes. In other words, for humans lesser capacities correspond to greater protections but for animals the opposite is true. Without (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 1000