Abstract

In this article, the author welcomes the inclusion of the brief exchange on animal rights in Division 24's inaugural "bulletin" issue for the question of psychology's treatment of animals raises many philosophical and theoretical questions. However, even in the informal format of letters and comments, it is unfortunately remiss to omit not only reference to but discussion of the arguments in the primary source for the current debate —while including three references to one's own work. The author then continues to discuss Rowan's description of Gallup's position as a textbook example of ethical relativism, a position currently given little credence for obvious historical reasons. 2012 APA, all rights reserved)