7 found
Order:
See also
  1. Taking Humanism Seriously: ``Obligatory'' Anthropocentrism. [REVIEW]David Sztybel - 2000 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 13 (3-4):181-203.
    Humanism – in the sense that humans alonehave moral standing, or else a surpassing degree of it– has traditionally dominated all of ethicaldiscourse. However, its past formulations havesuccumbed to the temptation merely to stipulate sucha criterion, such as rationality, which nonhumans areoften deemed (without sufficient argument) to failwithout exception. Animal liberationistarguments do exist in counterpoint to traditionalhumanism, but one current difficulty seems to be asimple clash of basic assumptions, with an indecisiveresult. Although the author of this paper is anonanthropocentrist, he (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  2.  97
    Can the Treatment of Animals Be Compared to the Holocaust?David Sztybel - 2006 - Ethics and the Environment 11 (1):97-132.
    : The treatment of animals and the Holocaust have been compared many times before, but never has a thoroughly detailed comparison been offered. A thirty-nine-point comparison can be constructed, whether or not one believes that animals are oppressed. The question of whether or not the comparison ought to be expressed merely brings into question whether animal liberationists have liberal-democratic rights to express themselves, which they surely do. Four objections are considered: Is the comparison offensive? Does the comparison trivialize what happened (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  3.  61
    Animal Rights: Autonomy and Redundancy. [REVIEW]David Sztybel - 2001 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 14 (3):259-273.
    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 to (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  4.  11
    A Living Will Clause for Supporters of Animal Experimentation.David Sztybel - 2006 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 23 (2):173–189.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  5.  20
    Response to Evelyn B. Pluhar's ``Non-Obligatory Anthropocentrism''.David Sztybel - 2000 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 13 (3-4):337-340.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  6. Distinguishing Animal Rights From Animal Welfare.David Sztybel - 1998 - In Marc Bekoff & Carron A. Meaney (eds.), Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare. Greenwood Press. pp. 43--45.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  7.  26
    Marxism and Animal Rights.David Sztybel - 1997 - Ethics and the Environment 2 (2):169 - 185.
    There is no doubt that Marx and Engels rejected animal rights. However, they did embrace the communist principle, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his need." Furthermore, they acknowledged that nonhuman animals have needs. So the principle can enjoin us to respect animals' needs, even if they lack certain abilities (e.g., tool-making, perhaps even self-consciousness). I argue that it is essentially speciesist to restrict this principle to human beings, and that its acceptance implies either animal rights (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark