Animal suffering and rights: A reply to Singer and Regan
Ethics 88 (2):134-138 (1978)
Abstract
In this reply, I answer some of the criticisms of my article "'animal liberation': a critique" ("ethics", January 1978) made by peter singer and tom regan. Several ways in which they have misconstrued my position are discussed, As well as their charges that I have misrepresented theirs. My chief purpose here is to clarify and reaffirm, In most essential respects, My characterization of them as advocates of a doctrine of animal rights. I also reconsider the issue of the qualitative and quantitative equivalence of human and animal suffering, The notion of membership in a moral community, And the role of the capacity to enjoy and suffer in the ascription of moral rightsDOI
10.1086/292064
My notes
Similar books and articles
What animal rights? A critical reading of Thomas Regan.Jean-Yves Goffi - 1998 - In Georges Chapouthier & Jean-Claude Nouët (eds.), The Universal Declaration of Animal Rights: Comments and Intentions. Ligue Française des Droits De L'animal.
The case for animal rights.Tom Regan - 2009 - In Steven M. Cahn (ed.), Noûs. Oxford University Press. pp. 425-434.
Book Review:Rights, Killing, and Suffering. R. G. Frey; Animals and Why They Matter. Mary Midgley; The Case for Animal Rights. Tom Regan. [REVIEW]Alan Soble - 1985 - Ethics 96 (1):192-.
Food fight! Davis versus Regan on the ethics of eating beef.Andy Lamey - 2007 - Journal of Social Philosophy 38 (2):331–348.
Analytics
Added to PP
2009-01-28
Downloads
88 (#140,907)
6 months
2 (#296,374)
2009-01-28
Downloads
88 (#140,907)
6 months
2 (#296,374)
Historical graph of downloads