Revision as of 22:06, 26 August 2006 editSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 edits →Animal rights and the Holocaust: fixed refs, tidied← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:38, 26 September 2024 edit undo2a02:3030:a95:b82c:b464:61f0:1081:f070 (talk) →See also: Added Non-human electoral candidateTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|Rights belonging to animals}} | |||
{{Otheruses4|animal rights, the movement/philosophy|the album|Animal Rights (album)}} | |||
{{About|the philosophy of animal rights|current animal rights around the world|Animal rights by country or territory|a timeline of animal rights|Timeline of animal welfare and rights|other uses|Animal rights (disambiguation)}} | |||
<!--PLEASE INCLUDE A CITATION FOR ANY EDITS YOU MAKE, AND IF YOU KNOW OF A SOURCE FOR ANY UNSOURCED EXISTING MATERIAL, PLEASE ADD ONE. UNSOURCED EDITS ARE LIKELY TO BE REMOVED.--> | |||
] in ]]] | |||
], which is campaigning for a ]. ]] | |||
] in a ]]] | |||
{{Animal rights sidebar}} | |||
{{Rights|By claimant}} | |||
], the 23rd ], revived ] and ] in the 9th century BCE, which led to a radical animal-rights movement in South Asia.<ref>{{cite book|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=YAFPAQAAIAAJ&q=Parshwanatha+animal+rights|title= You are, therefore I am: A declaration of dependence|last1= Kumar|first1= Satish|date= September 2002|publisher= Bloomsbury USA|isbn= 9781903998182}}</ref>]] | |||
], in his '']'', taught ''ahimsa'' and ] as personal virtues. The plaque in this statue of Valluvar at an animal sanctuary in ] describes the Kural's teachings on ahimsa and ], summing them up with the definition of ].]] | |||
'''Animal rights''' is the ] according to which many or all ] have ] independent of their ] to humans, and that their most basic interests—such as avoiding ]—should be afforded the same consideration as similar interests of human beings.<ref>DeGrazia (2002), ch. 2; Taylor (2009), ch. 1.</ref> Broadly speaking, and particularly in popular discourse, the term "animal rights" is often used synonymously with "animal protection" or "animal liberation". More narrowly, "animal rights" refers to the idea that many animals have fundamental rights to be treated with respect as individuals—], ], and ] from torture that may not be overridden by considerations of aggregate welfare.<ref>Taylor (2009), ch. 3.</ref> | |||
'''Animal rights''', '''animal liberation''', or '''animal personhood''', <ref name=Michael>Michael, Steven. , ''The Physiologist'', Volume 47, No. 6, December 2004.</ref> is the movement to protect animals from being used or regarded as property by human beings. It is a radical ] <ref name=Guither>Guither, Harold D. ''Animal Rights: History and Scope of a Radical Social Movement''. Southern Illinois University Press; reissue edition 1997. ISBN 0809321998</ref> <ref name=EB1>"Ethics," ''Encyclopaedia Britannica'', retrieved June 17, 2006.</ref> insofar as it aims not only to attain more ] treatment for animals, <ref name=EB2> "Environmentalism," ''Encyclopædia Britannica'', retrieved June 17, 2006.</ref> but also to include species other than human beings within the moral community <ref>Taylor, Angus. ''Animals and Ethics: An Overview of the Philosophical Debate'', Broadview Press, May 2003. ISBN 1551115697</ref> by giving their basic interests — for example, the interest in avoiding suffering — the same consideration as those of human beings. <ref name=EB3>"Animal rights," ''Encyclopædia Britannica'', retrieved June 16, 2006.</ref> The claim is that animals should no longer be regarded legally or morally as property, or treated as resources for human purposes, but should instead be regarded as ]s. <ref name=AAMC>, Association of American Medical Colleges, retrieved July 12, 2006.</ref> The movement seeks an end to all forms of what it sees as animal exploitation, including the use of ], as sources of entertainment, as clothing, and as food. <ref name=EB2/> | |||
Many advocates of animal rights oppose the assignment of moral value and fundamental protections on the basis of species membership alone.<ref>Compare for example similar usage of the term in 1938: {{cite book | |||
] courses are now taught in 69 out of 180 United States law schools; <ref>, ], retrieved August 23, 2006.</ref> 47 of them have student ], with more being set up in Australia, Canada, England, and New Zealand. State, regional, and local bar associations are forming animal law committees to advocate for new animal rights and protections, <ref name=Michael/> and the idea of extending personhood to animals has the support of some senior legal scholars, including ] <ref name=DershowitzAA>Dershowitz, Alan. ''Rights from Wrongs: A Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights'', 2004, pp. 198-99, and {{PDFlink}} ''The Animals' Advocate'', Winter 2002, volume 21.</ref> and ] of ]. <ref name=AAMC/> Three countries have passed legislation awarding recognition to the rights of animals. In 1992, Switzerland recognized animals as beings, not things; <ref name=CNN1>, ''CNN'', June 21, 2002</ref> in 1999, New Zealand gave non-human ] the right not to be experimented on unless it is in their own interests; <ref name=Mydans>Mydans, Seth. "He's not hairy, he's my brother," ''The New York Times'', August 12, 2001.</ref> and in 2002, a clause acknowledging the rights of animals was added to the German constitution. <ref name=CNN1/> The Seattle-based ], founded by philosophers Paola Cavalieri and ], is campaigning for the United Nations to adopt a ], which would see ]s, ]s, ]s and ]s included in a "community of equals" with human beings, extending to them the protection of three basic interests: the ], the protection of individual liberty, and the prohibition of torture. <ref name=ape>, ], retrieved April 20, 2006.</ref> This is seen by an increasing number of animal rights lawyers as a first step toward granting rights to other animals. <ref name=Michael/><ref>], who teaches animal rights law at Harvard Law School, has said of this approach, quoting economist Robert Samuelson: "Progress occurs funeral by funeral." (Wise, Steven M. "Address at the 5th Annual Conference on Animals and the Law," Committee on Legal Issues Pertaining to Animals, Association of the Bar of the City of New York, September 25, 1999)</ref> | |||
| year = 1938 | |||
| title = The American Biology Teacher | |||
| url = https://books.google.com/books?id=gQbbAAAAMAAJ | |||
| publisher = National Association of Biology Teachers | |||
| volume = 53 | |||
| page = 211 | |||
| access-date = 16 April 2021 | |||
| quote = The foundation from which these behaviors spring is the ideology known as speciesism. Speciesism is deeply rooted in the widely-held belief that the human species is entitled to certain rights and privileges.}}</ref> They consider this idea, known as ], a prejudice as irrational as any other.<ref>Horta (2010).</ref> They maintain that animals should not be viewed as property or used as food, clothing, entertainment, or ] merely because they are not human.<ref>That a central goal of animal rights is to eliminate the property status of animals, see Sunstein (2004), p. 11ff. | |||
* For speciesism and fundamental protections, see Waldau (2011). | |||
* For food, clothing, research subjects or entertainment, see Francione (1995), p. 17.</ref> Multiple cultural traditions around the world such as ], ], ], ], ] and ] also espouse forms of animal rights. | |||
In parallel to the debate about moral rights, law schools in North America now often teach ],<ref name="Animal law courses">{{Cite web|title= Animal Law Courses|url= https://aldf.org/article/animal-law-courses/|website= ]|access-date= 2020-12-13|archive-date= 2020-12-04|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20201204203520/https://aldf.org/article/animal-law-courses/|url-status= live}}</ref> and several legal scholars, such as ] and ], support the extension of basic legal rights and ]hood to non-human animals. The animals most often considered in arguments for personhood are ]. Some animal-rights academics support this because it would break the species barrier, but others oppose it because it predicates moral value on mental complexity rather than on ] alone.<ref>For animal-law courses in North America, see {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100613170018/http://aldf.org/article.php?id=445 |date=2010-06-13 }}, ]. Retrieved July 12, 2012. | |||
Critics of the concept of animal rights argue that, because animals do not have the capacity to enter into a ] or make moral choices, <ref name=Regan1>. Regan, Tom. , retrieved April 20, 2006.</ref> and cannot respect the rights of others or understand the concept of rights, they cannot be regarded as possessors of moral rights. The philosopher ] argues that only human beings have duties and that "he corollary is inescapable: we alone have rights." | |||
* For a discussion of animals and personhood, see Wise (2000), pp. 4, 59, 248ff; Wise (2004); Posner (2004); {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080614152221/http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-257091/animal-rights |date=2008-06-14 }}. | |||
<ref name=Scruton1>Scruton, Roger. , ''City Journal'', volume 10, issue 3, pages 100-107, summer 2000. ISSN 10608540.</ref> Critics holding this position argue that there is nothing inherently wrong with using animals for food, as entertainment, and in research, though human beings may nevertheless have an obligation to ensure they do not suffer unnecessarily. <ref name=Frey>Frey, R.G. ''Interests and Rights: The Case against Animals''. Clarendon Press, 1980 ISBN 0198244215</ref> <ref name=Scruton2>Scruton, Roger. ''Animal Rights and Wrongs'', Metro, 2000.ISBN 1900512815.</ref> This position is generally called the ] position, and it is held by some of the oldest of the animal-protection agencies: for example, by the ] in the UK. | |||
* For the arguments and counter-arguments about awarding personhood only to great apes, see Garner (2005), p. 22. | |||
* Also see ] (February 20, 2000). {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170501195553/https://www.nytimes.com/books/00/02/20/reviews/000220.20sunstet.html |date=2017-05-01 }}, ''The New York Times''.</ref> {{As of |2019 | November}}, 29 countries had enacted ]; ] has granted captive ]s basic human rights since 2014.<ref>{{cite web|url= http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/23/world/americas/feat-orangutan-rights-ruling/|title= Argentine orangutan granted unprecedented legal rights|last1= Giménez|first1= Emiliano|date= January 4, 2015|website= edition.cnn.com|publisher= ]|access-date= April 21, 2015|archive-date= April 3, 2021|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20210403030759/https://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/23/world/americas/feat-orangutan-rights-ruling/|url-status= live}}</ref> Outside of ], animal-rights discussions most often address the status of ]s (compare ]). Other animals (considered less sentient) have gained less attention—] relatively little<ref> | |||
{{cite book | |||
| last1 = Cohen | |||
| first1 = Carl | |||
| author-link1 = Carl Cohen (philosopher) | |||
| last2 = Regan | |||
| first2 = Tom | |||
| author-link2 = Tom Regan | |||
| title = The Animal Rights Debate | |||
| url = https://books.google.com/books?id=JPHtAAAAMAAJ | |||
| series = Point/Counterpoint: Philosophers Debate Contemporary Issues Series | |||
| year = 2001 | |||
| location = Lanham, Maryland | |||
| publisher = Rowman & Littlefield Publishers | |||
| publication-date = 2001 | |||
| page = 47 | |||
| isbn = 9780847696628 | |||
| access-date = 16 April 2021 | |||
| quote = Too often overlooked in the animal world, according to Sapontzis, are insects that have interests, and therefore rights. | |||
}} | |||
</ref> (outside ]) and animal-like ] hardly any.<ref> | |||
The concept of "bacteria rights" can appear coupled with disdain or irony: | |||
{{cite book | |||
| last1 = Pluhar | |||
| first1 = Evelyn B. | |||
| author-link1 = Evelyn Pluhar | |||
| chapter = Human "superiority" and the argument from marginal cases | |||
| title = Beyond Prejudice: The Moral Significance of Human and Nonhuman Animals | |||
| url = https://books.google.com/books?id=S4VyLcBzek0C | |||
| series = Book collections on Project MUSE | |||
| year = 1995 | |||
| location = Durham, North Carolina | |||
| publisher = Duke University Press | |||
| publication-date = 1995 | |||
| page = 9 | |||
| isbn = 9780822316480 | |||
| access-date = 16 April 2021 | |||
| quote = For example, in an editorial entitled 'Animal Rights Nonsense,' ... in the prestigious science journal ''Nature'', defenders of animal rights are accused of being committed to the absurdity of 'bacteria rights.' | |||
}} | |||
</ref> The vast majority of animals have no legally recognised rights.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Jakopovich|first=Daniel|date=2021|title=The UK's Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill Excludes the Vast Majority of Animals: Why We Must Expand Our Moral Circle to Include Invertebrates|url=https://onlineacademiccommunity.uvic.ca/asri/2021/10/17/the-uks-animal-welfare-sentience-bill-excludes-the-vast-majority-of-animals-why-we-should-expand-our-moral-circle-to-include-invertebrates|journal=Animals & Society Research Initiative, University of Victoria, Canada|access-date=2022-06-18|archive-date=2022-11-29|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221129010538/https://onlineacademiccommunity.uvic.ca/asri/2021/10/17/the-uks-animal-welfare-sentience-bill-excludes-the-vast-majority-of-animals-why-we-should-expand-our-moral-circle-to-include-invertebrates/|url-status=live}}</ref> | |||
Critics of animal rights argue that nonhuman animals are unable to enter into a ], and thus cannot have rights, a view summarised by the philosopher ], who writes that only humans have duties, and therefore only humans have rights.<ref name=Scruton/> Another argument, associated with the ] tradition, maintains that animals may be used as resources so long as there is no unnecessary suffering;<ref name="Ethical">{{cite journal| author1= Liguori, G.| display-authors= etal| year= 2017| title= Ethical Issues in the Use of Animal Models for Tissue Engineering: Reflections on Legal Aspects, Moral Theory, 3Rs Strategies, and Harm-Benefit Analysis| journal= Tissue Engineering Part C: Methods| volume= 23| issue= 12| pages= 850–862| doi= 10.1089/ten.TEC.2017.0189| pmid= 28756735| s2cid= 206268293| url= https://pure.rug.nl/ws/files/51950145/ten.tec.2017.0189.pdf| access-date= 2019-07-12| archive-date= 2020-09-15| archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20200915060144/https://pure.rug.nl/ws/files/51950145/ten.tec.2017.0189.pdf| url-status= live}}</ref> animals may have some moral standing, but any interests they have may be overridden in cases of comparatively greater gains to aggregate welfare made possible by their use, though what counts as "necessary" suffering or a legitimate sacrifice of interests can vary considerably.<ref>Garner (2005), pp. 11, 16. | |||
==History of the concept== | |||
*Also see Frey (1980); and for a review of Frey, see {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160219072849/http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1154902/pdf/jmedeth00155-0044.pdf |date=2016-02-19 }}.</ref> Certain forms of animal-rights activism, such as the destruction of ] and of ] by the ], have attracted criticism, including from within the ] itself,<ref>Singer (2000), pp. 151–156.</ref> and prompted the ] to enact laws, including the ], allowing the prosecution of this sort of activity as ].<ref> | |||
], the hierarchy of all forms of life, including ]s. From Didacus Valades' ''Rhetorica Christiana'', 1579]] | |||
{{Cite book | |||
|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=I_jh4VBi_HYC | |||
|title= The SAGE Encyclopedia of Terrorism, Second Edition | |||
|first= Gus|last= Martin|date= 15 June 2011 | |||
|publisher= SAGE|via= Google Books|isbn= 9781412980166 | |||
}} | |||
</ref> | |||
==History== | |||
The 20th century animal rights movement grew out of the animal welfare movement, which can be traced back to the earliest philosophers. <ref name=EB3/> | |||
{{Main|History of animal rights}}The concept of ] dates to ],<ref>{{cite book | last = Tähtinen | first = Unto | title = Ahimsa. Non-Violence in Indian Tradition | date = 1976 | location = London | pages = 2–3 (English translation: Schmidt p. 631) | isbn = 0-09-123340-2 }}</ref> with roots in early ] and ] history,<ref name="Grant">{{cite book |last1=Grant |first1=Catharine |title=The No-nonsense Guide to Animal Rights |url=https://archive.org/details/nononsenseguidet0000gran |url-access=registration |date=2006 |location=New Internationalist |isbn=9781904456407 |page= |language=en|quote=These religions emphasize ''ahimsa'', which is the principle of non-violence towards all living things. The first precept is a prohibition against the killing of any creature. The Jain, Hindu and Buddhist injunctions against killing serve to teach that all creatures are spiritually equal.}}</ref><ref name="BBC2019">{{cite web |title=Animal rights |url=https://www.bbc.com/bitesize/guides/z3ygjxs/revision/5 |publisher=] |access-date=17 March 2019 |language=en |quote=The main reason for Hindu respect for animal rights is the principle of ahimsa. According to the principle of ahimsa, no living thing should be harmed. This applies to humans and animals. The Jains' belief system takes the principle of ahimsa regarding animals so seriously that as well as being strict vegetarians, some followers wear masks to prevent them breathing in insects. They may also sweep paths with a small broom to make sure they do not tread on any living creatures. |archive-date=8 March 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210308062719/https://www.bbc.com/bitesize/guides/z3ygjxs/revision/5 |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref name="Mohitdagoat">{{cite book |last1=Owen |first1=Marna A. |title=Animal Rights: Noble Cause Or Needless Effort? |date=2009 |publisher=Twenty-First Century Books |isbn=9780761340829 |page= |language=en |url=https://archive.org/details/animalrightsnobl0000owen/page/12 }}</ref> while Eastern, African, and Indigenous peoples also have rich traditions of animal protection.{{cn|date=July 2024}} In the Western world, ] viewed animals as lacking reason<ref name=EB3>"." ''Encyclopædia Britannica''. 2007.</ref> and existing for human use, though other ancient philosophers believed animals deserved gentle treatment.{{cn|date=July 2024}} Major religious traditions, chiefly ], opposed animal cruelty. While scholars like ] saw animals as unconscious automata<ref>Waddicor, M. H., ''Montesquieu and the Philosophy of Natural Law'' (]: ], 1970), {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210816214230/https://books.google.com/books?id=sLooBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA63|date=16 August 2021}}.</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=23 December 1995 |title=''Animal Consciousness'', No. 2. Historical background |url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-animal/#hist |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080906181245/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-animal/#hist |archive-date=6 September 2008 |access-date=16 December 2014 |publisher=Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy}}</ref><ref>Parker, J. V., ''Animal Minds, Animal Souls, Animal Rights'' (]: ], 2010), p. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210816214246/https://books.google.com/books?id=Sh2AQTDV5DQC&pg=PA16|date=16 August 2021}}, {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210816214245/https://books.google.com/books?id=Sh2AQTDV5DQC&pg=PA88|date=16 August 2021}}, {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210816214239/https://books.google.com/books?id=Sh2AQTDV5DQC&pg=PA99|date=16 August 2021}}.</ref> and ] denied direct duties to animals,<ref>] (1785). '']''</ref> ] emphasized their capacity to suffer.<ref name=":2">Bentham, Jeremy. 1780. "". pp. 307–335 in '']''. London: T. Payne and Sons.</ref>{{Rp|309n}} The publications of ] eventually eroded the Cartesian view of animals.<ref>Spencer, J., {{"'}}Love and Hatred are Common to the Whole Sensitive Creation': Animal Feeling in the Century before Darwin," in A. Richardson, ed., ''After Darwin: Animals, Emotions, and the Mind'' (Amsterdam and New York: ], 2013), | |||
{{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210816214237/https://books.google.com/books?id=3imLAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA37|date=16 August 2021}}.</ref>{{rp|37}} Darwin noted the mental and emotional continuity between humans and animals, suggesting the possibility of animal suffering.<ref>{{Cite book |author=Workman, L. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=rz8dBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT177 |title=Charles Darwin: The Shaping of Evolutionary Thinking |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |year=2013 |isbn=978-1-137-31323-2 |page=177 |author-link=Lance Workman |access-date=19 August 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210816214235/https://books.google.com/books?id=rz8dBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT177 |archive-date=16 August 2021 |url-status=live}}</ref>{{rp|177}} The ] movement emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries,<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last=Franco|first=Nuno Henrique|date=2013-03-19|title=Animal Experiments in Biomedical Research: A Historical Perspective|journal=Animals|volume=3|issue=1|pages=238–273| doi=10.3390/ani3010238| issn=2076-2615| pmc=4495509| pmid=26487317| doi-access=free}}</ref> driven significantly by women.<ref name="Ross 2014">{{cite journal|author=Ross, Karen|year=2014|title=Winning Women's Votes: Defending Animal Experimentation and Women's Clubs in New York, 1920–1930|journal=New York History|volume=95|issue=1|pages=26–40|doi=10.1353/nyh.2014.0050 }}</ref> From the 1970s onward, growing scholarly and activist interest in animal treatment has aimed to raise awareness and reform laws to improve animal rights and human–animal relationships.{{cn|date=July 2024}} | |||
==In religion== | |||
In the 6th century ], ], the ] philosopher and ], urged respect for animals because he believed in the ] between human and animals, although ], writing in the 4th century BCE, argued that animals ranked far below humans in the ], or ''scala naturae'', because of their alleged ], and that as a result animals had no interests of their own, and existed only for human benefit. <ref name=EB3/> | |||
{{See also|Animals in Islam|Christianity and animal rights|Animal rights in Jainism, Hinduism, and Buddhism}} | |||
For some the basis of animal rights is in religion or ] (or in general ]), with some religions banning killing any animal. In other religions animals are considered ]. ] and ] societies abandoned animal sacrifice and embraced ] from the 3rd century BCE.<ref name="Garner 2005, pp. 21–22">Garner (2005), pp. 21–22.</ref> One of the most important sanctions of the ], Hindu, and Buddhist faiths is the concept of ], or refraining from the destruction of life<!-- (], p. 234)-->. According to Buddhism, humans do not deserve preferential treatment over other living beings.<ref name="Grant">{{cite book |last1=Grant |first1=Catharine |title=The No-nonsense Guide to Animal Rights |url=https://archive.org/details/nononsenseguidet0000gran |url-access=registration |date=2006 |location=New Internationalist |isbn=9781904456407 |page= |language=en|quote=These religions emphasize ''ahimsa'', which is the principle of non-violence towards all living things. The first precept is a prohibition against the killing of any creature. The Jain, Hindu and Buddhist injunctions against killing serve to teach that all creatures are spiritually equal.}}</ref> The ] interpretation of this doctrine prohibits the killing of any living being.<ref name="Grant" /> These Indian religions' dharmic beliefs are reflected in the ancient Indian works of the ] and ], which contain passages that extend the idea of nonviolence to all living beings.<ref>{{cite web | url = https://ivu.org/congress/wvc57/souvenir/tamil.html | title = Vegetarianism in Tamil Literature | last = Meenakshi Sundaram | first = T. P. | date = 1957 | website = 15th World Vegetarian Congress 1957 | publisher = International Vegetarian Union (IVU) | access-date = 17 April 2022 | quote = Ahimsa is the ruling principle of Indian life from the very earliest times. ... This positive spiritual attitude is easily explained to the common man in a negative way as "ahimsa" and hence this way of denoting it. Tiruvalluvar speaks of this as "kollaamai" or "non-killing." | archive-date = 22 January 2022 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20220122033037/https://ivu.org/congress/wvc57/souvenir/tamil.html | url-status = live }}</ref> | |||
In the 17th century, the French philosopher ] argued that animals had no ]s, did not think, and could therefore be treated as if they were things, not beings. Against this, ] argued, in the preface of his ] (1754), that man starts as an animal, though not one "devoid of intellect and freedom." <ref name=Rousseau>]. '']'', 1754, preface.</ref> However, as animals are sensitive beings, "they too ought to participate in natural right, and that man is subject to some sort of duties toward them," specifically "one the right not to be uselessly mistreated by the other." <ref name=Rousseau/> | |||
In Islam, animal rights were recognized early by the ]. This recognition is based on both the ] and the ]. The Qur'an contains many references to animals, detailing that they have souls, form communities, communicate with God, and worship Him in their own way. ] forbade his followers to harm any animal and asked them to respect animals' rights.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/islamethics/animals_1.shtml|title=BBC - Religions - Islam: Animals|publisher=bbc.co.uk|access-date=2019-12-20|archive-date=2020-02-04|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200204062925/http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/islamethics/animals_1.shtml|url-status=live}}</ref> Nevertheless, Islam does allow eating of certain species of animals. | |||
Contemporaneous with Rousseau was the Scottish writer ], who died in 1793. In ''The Cry of Nature or an Appeal to Mercy and Justice on Behalf of the Persecuted Animals'', Oswald argued that man is naturally equipped with feelings of mercy and compassion. {{fact}} If each man had to witness the death of the animals he ate, he argued, a vegetarian diet would be far more common. The division of labor, however, allows modern man to eat flesh without experiencing what Oswald called the prompting of man's natural sensitivities, while the brutalization of modern man made him inured to these sensitivities. | |||
According to ], all animals, from the smallest to the largest, are cared for and loved. According to the Bible, "All these animals waited for the Lord, that the Lord might give them food at the hour. The Lord gives them, they receive; The Lord opens his hand, and they are filled with good things."<ref>Proverbs 30:24 and NW; Psalm 104:24, 25, 27, 28</ref> It further says ] "gave food to the animals, and made the crows cry."<ref>Ps 147:9</ref> | |||
Later in the 18th century, one of the founders of modern ], the English philosopher ], argued that animal pain is as real and as morally relevant as human pain, and that "he day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been witholden from them but by the hand of tyranny." <ref name=Bentham>Bentham, Jeremy. ''An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation'', 1789. Latest edition: Adamant Media Corporation, 2005.</ref> Bentham argued that the ability to suffer, not the ability to ], must be the benchmark of how we treat other beings. If the ability to reason were the criterion, many human beings, including babies and disabled people, would also have to be treated as though they were things, famously writing that: | |||
==Philosophical and legal approaches== | |||
<blockquote>It may one day come to be recognized that the number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the '']'' are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate.</blockquote> | |||
===Overview=== | |||
<blockquote>What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason or perhaps the faculty of ]? But a full-grown ] or ] is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or even a month old. But suppose they were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, Can they reason?, nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? Why should the law refuse its protection to any sensitive being? The time will come when humanity will extend its mantle over everything which breathes ... <ref name=Bentham/></blockquote> | |||
{{Further|Consequentialism|Deontological ethics}} | |||
], Professor of Law and Ethics at the University of Chicago, is a proponent of the ] to animal rights.]] | |||
The two main philosophical approaches to animal ethics are utilitarian and rights-based. The former is exemplified by ], and the latter by ] and ]. Their differences reflect a distinction philosophers draw between ethical theories that judge the rightness of an act by its consequences (consequentialism/teleological ethics, or utilitarianism), and those that focus on the principle behind the act, almost regardless of consequences (deontological ethics). Deontologists argue that there are acts we should never perform, even if failing to do so entails a worse outcome.<ref>Craig (1988).</ref> | |||
There are a number of positions that can be defended from a consequentalist or deontologist perspective, including the ], represented by ], and the ], which has been examined by Ingmar Persson and ]. The capabilities approach focuses on what individuals require to fulfill their capabilities: Nussbaum (2006) argues that animals need a right to life, some control over their environment, company, play, and physical health.<ref>Nussbaum (2006), pp. 388ff, 393ff; also see Nussbaum (2004), p. 299ff.</ref> | |||
In the 19th century, ] argued that animals have the same essence as humans, despite lacking the faculty of reason. Although he considered vegetarianism to be only supererogatory, he argued for consideration to be given to animals in morality, and he opposed ]. His critique of ]ian ethics contains a lengthy and often furious polemic against the exclusion of animals in his moral system, which contained the famous line: "Cursed be any morality that does not see the essential unity in all eyes that see the sun." {{fact}} | |||
], ], and ] also discuss animal rights in terms of animals being permitted to lead a life appropriate for their kind.<ref>Weir (2009): see Clark (1977); Rollin (1981); Midgley (1984).</ref> Egalitarianism favors an equal distribution of happiness among all individuals, which makes the interests of the worse off more important than those of the better off.<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160413170400/http://www.jstor.org/stable/25115834 |date=2016-04-13 }}; Vallentyne (2007).</ref> Another approach, ], holds that in considering how to act we should consider the character of the actor, and what kind of moral agents we should be. ] has suggested an approach to animal rights based on virtue ethics.<ref>Rowlands (2009), p. 98ff; Hursthouse (2000a); Hursthouse (2000b), p. 146ff.</ref> ] has proposed a ] approach.<ref name=Rowlands1998p118/><!--expand Clark, Nussbaum, virtue ethics--> | |||
The world's first animal welfare organization, the ], was founded in Britain in 1824, and similar groups soon sprang up elsewhere in ] and then in ]. The first such group in the United States, the ], was chartered in the state of ] in 1866. | |||
===Utilitarianism=== | |||
The concept of animal rights became the subject of an influential book in 1892, ''Animals' Rights: Considered in Relation to Social Progress'', by ] social reformer ], who had formed the Humanitarian League a year earlier, with the objective of banning hunting as a sport. | |||
{{Further|Equal consideration of interests|Utilitarianism}} | |||
Nussbaum (2004) writes that utilitarianism, starting with ] and ], has contributed more to the recognition of the moral status of animals than any other ethical theory.<ref>Nussbaum (2004), p. 302.</ref> The utilitarian philosopher most associated with animal rights is Peter Singer, professor of bioethics at ]. Singer is not a rights theorist, but {{Citation needed span|text=uses the language of rights to discuss how we ought to treat individuals.|date=October 2023}} He is a ],{{Needs update|date=October 2023|reason=Singer revealed in The Point of View of the Universe (2014) that he is no longer a preference utilitarian.}} meaning that he judges the rightness of an act by the extent to which it satisfies the preferences (interests) of those affected.<ref>For a discussion of preference utilitarianism, see Singer (2011), pp. 14ff, 94ff.</ref> | |||
His position is that there is no reason not to give equal consideration to the interests of human and nonhumans, though his principle of equality does not require identical treatment. A mouse and a man both have an interest in not being kicked, and there are no moral or logical grounds for failing to accord those interests equal weight. Interests are predicated on the ability to suffer, nothing more, and once it is established that a being has interests, those interests must be given equal consideration.<ref name=Singer7>Singer (1990), pp. 7–8.</ref> Singer quotes the English philosopher ] (1838–1900): "The good of any one individual is of no more importance, from the point of view ... of the Universe, than the good of any other."<ref name="Singer5">Singer 1990, p. 5.</ref> | |||
By the late 20th century, animal welfare societies and laws against cruelty to animals existed in almost every country in the world. Specialized animal advocacy groups also proliferated, including those dedicated to the preservation of endangered species and others, like ] (PETA), that protested against painful or brutal methods of hunting animals, the mistreatment of animals raised for human food in ], and the use of animals in experiments and entertainment. | |||
]: interests are predicated on the ability to suffer.]] | |||
==History of the modern movement== | |||
Singer argues that equality of consideration is a prescription, not an assertion of fact: if the equality of the sexes were based only on the idea that men and women were equally intelligent, we would have to abandon the practice of equal consideration if this were later found to be false. But the moral idea of equality does not depend on matters of fact such as intelligence, physical strength, or moral capacity. Equality therefore cannot be grounded on the outcome of scientific investigations into the intelligence of nonhumans. All that matters is whether they can suffer.<ref name=Singer1990p4>Singer (1990), p. 4.</ref> | |||
The modern animal rights movement can be traced to the early 1970s, and is one of the few examples of social movements that were created by philosophers, <ref name=EB1/> and in which they remain in the forefront. In the early 1970s, a group of ] philosophers began to question whether the moral status of non-human animals was necessarily inferior to that of human beings. <ref name=EB1/> This group included the psychologist ], who coined the phrase "]" in 1970, first using it in a privately printed pamphlet <ref name=Ryder>Ryder, Richard D. , ''The Guardian'', August 6, 2005</ref> to describe the assignment of value to the interests of beings on the basis of their membership of a particular species. | |||
Commentators on all sides of the debate now accept that animals suffer and feel pain, although it was not always so. ], professor of philosophy, animal sciences, and biomedical sciences at Colorado State University, writes that Descartes's influence continued to be felt until the 1980s. Veterinarians trained in the US before 1989 were taught to ignore pain, he writes, and at least one major veterinary hospital in the 1960s did not stock narcotic analgesics for animal pain control. In his interactions with scientists, he was often asked to "prove" that animals are conscious, and to provide "scientifically acceptable" evidence that they could feel pain.<ref name=Rollin117>Rollin (1989), pp. xii, pp. 117–118; {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200728054434/https://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v8/n6/full/7400996.html |date=2020-07-28 }}.</ref> | |||
Ryder became a contributor to the influential book ''Animals, Men and Morals: An Inquiry into the Maltreatment of Non-humans'', edited by Roslind and Stanley Godlovitch and John Harris, and published in 1972. It was in a review of this book for the '']'' that Peter Singer, now Ira W. DeCamp Professor of ] at the University Center for Human Values at ], put forward the basic arguments, based on ], that in 1975 became ''Animal Liberation'', the book often referred to as the "bible" of the animal rights movement. | |||
Scientific publications have made it clear since the 1980s that the majority of researchers do believe animals suffer and feel pain, though it continues to be argued that their suffering may be reduced by an inability to experience the same dread of anticipation as humans or to remember the suffering as vividly.<ref>Singer (1990), pp. 10–17, citing Stamp Dawkins (1980), Walker (1983), and Griffin (1984); Garner (2005), pp. 13–14.</ref> The ability of animals to suffer, even it may vary in severity, is the basis for Singer's application of equal consideration. The problem of animal suffering, and animal consciousness in general, arose primarily because it was argued that animals ]. Singer writes that, if language were needed to communicate pain, it would often be impossible to know when humans are in pain, though we can observe pain behavior and make a calculated guess based on it. He argues that there is no reason to suppose that the pain behavior of nonhumans would have a different meaning from the pain behavior of humans.<ref>Singer (1990) p. 12ff.</ref> | |||
In the 1980s and 1990s, the movement was joined by a wide variety of academic and professional groups, including theologians, lawyers, physicians, psychologists, psychiatrists, veterinarians, <ref name=EB3/> pathologists, and former vivisectionists. | |||
===Subjects-of-a-life=== | |||
Other books regarded as ground-breaking include ]'s, ''The Case for Animal Rights'' (1983); James Rachels's, ''Created from Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism'' (1990); and Steven M. Wise's, ''Rattling the Cage: Toward Legal Rights for Animals (2000)''. <ref name=EB3/> | |||
{{Further|The Case for Animal Rights}} | |||
]: animals are subjects-of-a-life.]] | |||
Tom Regan, professor emeritus of philosophy at North Carolina State University, argues in ''The Case for Animal Rights'' (1983) that nonhuman animals are what he calls "subjects-of-a-life", and as such are bearers of rights.<ref name=Regan243>Regan (1983), p. 243.</ref> He writes that, because the moral rights of humans are based on their possession of certain ] abilities, and because these abilities are also possessed by at least some nonhuman animals, such animals must have the same moral rights as humans. Although only humans act as moral agents, both marginal-case humans, such as infants, and at least some nonhumans must have the status of "moral patients".<ref name=Regan243/> | |||
Moral patients are unable to formulate moral principles, and as such are unable to do right or wrong, even though what they do may be beneficial or harmful. Only moral agents are able to engage in moral action. Animals for Regan have "]" as subjects-of-a-life, and cannot be regarded as a means to an end, a view that places him firmly in the abolitionist camp. His theory does not extend to all animals, but only to those that can be regarded as subjects-of-a-life.<ref name=Regan243/> He argues that all normal mammals of at least one year of age would qualify: | |||
==Philosophy of the modern movement== | |||
{{alib}} | |||
Animal rights is the concept that all or some animals are entitled to possess their own lives; that they are deserving of, or already possess, certain ] rights; and that some basic rights for animals ought to be enshrined in law. The animal-rights view rejects the concept that animals are merely ] or ] intended for the benefit of humans. The concept is often confused with ], which is the philosophy that takes cruelty towards animals and animal suffering into account, but that does not assign specific moral rights to them. | |||
{{Blockquote|... individuals are subjects-of-a-life if they have beliefs and desires; perception, memory, and a sense of the future, including their own future; an emotional life together with feelings of pleasure and pain; preference- and welfare-interests; the ability to initiate action in pursuit of their desires and goals; a psychophysical identity over time; and an individual welfare in the sense that their experiential life fares well or ill for them, logically independently of their utility for others and logically independently of their being the object of anyone else's interests.<ref name=Regan243/>}} | |||
The animal-rights ] does not necessarily maintain that human and non-human animals are equal. For example, animal-rights advocates do not call for ] for chickens. Some activists also make a distinction between ] or self-aware animals and other life forms, with the belief that only sentient animals, or perhaps only animals who have a significant degree of self-awareness, should be afforded the right to possess their own lives and bodies, without regard to how they are valued by humans. Others would extend this right to all animals, even those without developed ]s or self-]. {{fact}} Activists maintain that any human being or institution that commodifies animals for ], ], ], ], ], or for any other reason, infringes upon the animals' right to possess themselves and to pursue their own ends. | |||
Whereas Singer is primarily concerned with improving the treatment of animals and accepts that, in some hypothetical scenarios, individual animals might be used legitimately to further human or nonhuman ends, Regan believes we ought to treat nonhuman animals as we would humans. He applies the strict ] ideal (which Kant himself applied only to humans) that they ought never to be sacrificed as a means to an end, and must be treated as ends in themselves.<ref>Regan (1983).</ref> | |||
Few people would deny that non-human ] are intelligent and aware of their own condition and goals, and may become frustrated when their freedoms are curtailed. In contrast, animals like ] have simple nervous systems, and may be little more than automata, capable of basic reflexes but incapable of formulating any ends to their actions or plans to pursue them, and equally unable to notice whether they are in captivity. There is as yet no consensus with regard to which qualities make a living organism an animal in need of rights. The animal-rights debate, much like the ] debate, is therefore marred by the difficulty that its opponents search for simple, clear-cut distinctions on which to base moral and political judgements, even though the biological realities of the problem present no hard and fast boundaries on which such distinctions could be based. From a ] perspective, jellyfish, farmed chicken, laboratory mice, or pet cats would fall along different points on a complex spectrum from the "nearly vegetable" to the "highly sentient". | |||
===Abolitionism=== | |||
Opponents of animal rights have attempted to identify the morally relevant differences between humans and animals that might justify the attribution of rights and interests to the former but not to the latter. Various distinguishing features of humans have been proposed, including the possession of a ], the ability to use ], ], a high level of ], and the ability to recognize the ]s and interests of others. However, such criteria face the difficulty that they do not seem to apply to all and only humans: each may apply either to some but not to all humans or to all humans but also to some animals. | |||
{{Further|Abolitionism (animal rights)|Animals, Property, and the Law}} | |||
]: animals need only the right not to be regarded as property.]] | |||
Gary Francione, professor of law and philosophy at ] in Newark, is a leading abolitionist writer, arguing that animals need only one right, the right not to be owned. Everything else would follow from that ]. He writes that, although most people would condemn the mistreatment of animals, and in many countries there are laws that seem to reflect those concerns, "in practice the legal system allows any use of animals, however abhorrent." The law only requires that any suffering not be "unnecessary". In deciding what counts as "unnecessary", an animal's interests are weighed against the interests of human beings, and the latter almost always prevail.<ref>Francione (1990), pp. 4, 17ff.</ref> | |||
Francione's ''Animals, Property, and the Law'' (1995) was the first extensive jurisprudential treatment of animal rights. In it, Francione compares the situation of animals to the treatment of ], where legislation existed that appeared to protect them while the courts ignored that the institution of slavery itself rendered the protection unenforceable.<ref>Francione (1995), pp. 4–5.</ref> He offers as an example the United States ], which he describes as an example of symbolic legislation, intended to assuage public concern about the treatment of animals, but difficult to implement.<ref>Francione (1995), p. 208ff.</ref> | |||
===Different approaches=== | |||
Peter Singer and Tom Regan are the best-known proponents of animal liberation, though they differ in their philosophical approaches. Another influential thinker is ], who presents an ] view that non-human animals should have the basic right not to be treated as the property of humans. | |||
He argues that a focus on animal welfare, rather than animal rights, may worsen the position of animals by making the public feel comfortable about using them and entrenching the view of them as property. He calls animal rights groups who pursue animal welfare issues, such as ], the "]", arguing that they have more in common with 19th-century animal protectionists than with the animal rights movement; indeed, the terms "animal protection" and "protectionism" are increasingly favored. His position in 1996 was that there is no animal rights movement in the United States.<ref> | |||
====Utilitarian approach==== | |||
*Francione and Garner (2010), pp. 1ff, 175ff. | |||
Although Singer is the ideological founder of today's animal-rights movement, his approach to an animal's moral status is not based on the concept of rights, but on the ] principle of ]. His 1975 book '']'' argues that humans grant moral consideration to other humans not on the basis of intelligence (in the instance of children, or the mentally disabled), on the ability to moralize (criminals and the insane), or on any other attribute that is inherently human, but rather on their ability to experience ''suffering''. <ref name=Singer>Singer, Peter. ''Animal Liberation'', 1975; second edition, New York: Avon Books, 1990, ISBN 0940322005</ref> As animals also experience suffering, he argues, excluding animals from such consideration is a form of discrimination known as "]." | |||
*Hall, Lee. {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090508021512/http://www.friendsofanimals.org/programs/animal-rights/interview-with-gary-francione.html |date=May 8, 2009 }}, Friends of Animals. Retrieved February 3, 2011.</ref> | |||
===Contractarianism=== | |||
Singer argues that the way in which humans use animals is not justified, because the benefits to humans are negligible compared to the amount of animal suffering they necessarily entail, and because the same benefits can be obtained in ways that do not involve the same degree of suffering. | |||
{{Further|Social contract}} | |||
], professor of philosophy at the University of Florida, has proposed a contractarian approach, based on the ] and the ]—a "state of nature" thought experiment that tests intuitions about justice and fairness—in ]'s '']'' (1971). In the original position, individuals choose principles of justice (what kind of society to form, and how primary social goods will be distributed), unaware of their individual characteristics—their race, sex, class, or intelligence, whether they are able-bodied or disabled, rich or poor—and therefore unaware of which role they will assume in the society they are about to form.<ref name=Rowlands1998p118>Rowlands (1998), p. 118ff, particularly pp. 147–152.</ref> | |||
The idea is that, operating behind the veil of ignorance, they will choose a social contract in which there is basic fairness and justice for them no matter the position they occupy. Rawls did not include species membership as one of the attributes hidden from the decision-makers in the original position. Rowlands proposes extending the veil of ignorance to include rationality, which he argues is an undeserved property similar to characteristics including race, sex and intelligence.<ref name="Rowlands1998p118"/> | |||
====Rights-based approach==== | |||
Tom Regan (''The Case for Animal Rights'' and '']'') argues that non-human animals, as "subjects-of-a-life," are bearers of rights like humans. He argues that, because the moral rights of humans are based on their possession of certain ] abilities, and because these abilities are also possessed by at least some non-human animals, such animals must have the same moral rights as humans. | |||
===''Prima facie'' rights theory=== | |||
Animals in this class have "inherent value" as individuals, and cannot be regarded as means to an end. This is also called the "direct duty" view. According to Regan, we should abolish the breeding of animals for food, animal experimentation, and commercial hunting. Regan's theory does not extend to all sentient animals but only to those that can be regarded as "subjects-of-a-life." He argues that all normal mammals of at least one year of age would qualify in this regard. | |||
{{Further|Prima facie right}} | |||
American philosopher Timothy Garry has proposed an approach that deems nonhuman animals worthy of ''prima facie'' rights. In a philosophical context, a ''prima facie'' (Latin for "on the face of it" or "at first glance") right is one that appears to be applicable at first glance, but upon closer examination may be outweighed by other considerations. In his book '']'', ] characterizes such rights as "the right is real but leaves open the question of whether it is applicable and overriding in a particular situation".<ref name="Hinman1998p208">Hinman, Lawrence M. Ethics: A Pluralistic Approach to Moral Theory. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College, 1998. Print.</ref> The idea that nonhuman animals are worthy of ''prima facie'' rights is to say that, in a sense, animals have rights that can be overridden by many other considerations, especially those conflicting a human's right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Garry supports his view arguing: | |||
{{Blockquote|... if a nonhuman animal were to kill a human being in the U.S., it would have broken the laws of the land and would probably get rougher sanctions than if it were a human. My point is that like laws govern all who interact within a society, rights are to be applied to all beings who interact within that society. This is not to say these rights endowed by humans are equivalent to those held by nonhuman animals, but rather that if humans possess rights then so must all those who interact with humans.<ref name=Garry2012p6>Garry, Timothy J. Nonhuman Animals: Possessors of Prima Facie Rights (2012), p.6</ref>}} | |||
While Singer is primarily concerned with improving the treatment of animals and accepts that, at least in some hypothetical scenarios, animals could be legitimately used for further (human or non-human) ends, Regan believes we ought to treat animals as we would persons, and he applies the strict ] idea that they ought never to be sacrificed as mere means to ends, and must be treated as ends unto themselves. Notably, Kant himself did not believe animals were subject to what he called the moral law; he believed we ought to show compassion, but primarily because not to do so brutalizes human beings, and not for the sake of animals themselves. | |||
In sum, Garry suggests that humans have obligations to nonhuman animals; animals do not, and ought not to, have uninfringible rights against humans. | |||
Despite these theoretical differences, both Singer and Regan agree about what to do in practise. For example, they agree that the adoption of a ] diet and the abolition of nearly all forms of ] are ethically mandatory. | |||
=== |
===Feminism and animal rights=== | ||
{{Further|Women and animal advocacy|Ethics of care|Feminist ethics}} | |||
Critics such as Carl Cohen, professor of philosophy at the University of Michigan and the University of Michigan Medical School, oppose the granting of personhood to animals. Cohen wrote in the '']'' in October 1986: that "he holders of rights must have the capacity to comprehend rules of duty governing all, including themselves. In applying such rules, the holders of rights must recognize possible conflicts between what is in their own interest and what is just. Only in a community of beings capable of self-restricting moral judgments can the concept of a right be correctly invoked." | |||
] ] has written extensively about the link between feminism and animal rights, starting with ''The Sexual Politics of Meat'' (1990).]] | |||
Women have played a central role in animal advocacy since the 19th century.<ref name="Lansbury et al">Lansbury (1985); Adams (1990); Donovan (1993); Gruen (1993); Adams (1994); Adams and Donovan (1995); Adams (2004); MacKinnon (2004).</ref> The anti-vivisection movement in the 19th and early 20th century in England and the United States was largely run by women, including ], ], ] and ] (1833–1916).<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200413040407/https://www.jstor.org/stable/4289385 |date=2020-04-13 }}.</ref> Garner writes that 70 per cent of the membership of the Victoria Street Society (one of the anti-vivisection groups founded by Cobbe) were women, as were 70 per cent of the membership of the British RSPCA in 1900.<ref>Garner (2005), p. 141, citing Elston (1990), p. 276.</ref> | |||
The modern animal advocacy movement has a similar representation of women. They are not invariably in leadership positions: during the March for Animals in Washington, D.C., in 1990—the largest animal rights demonstration held until then in the United States—most of the participants were women, but most of the platform speakers were men.<ref name=Garner2005p142>Garner (2005), pp. 142–143.</ref> Nevertheless, several influential animal advocacy groups have been founded by women, including the ] by Cobbe in London in 1898; the ] by ] in 1962; and ], co-founded by ] in 1980. In the Netherlands, ] and ] were elected to parliament in 2006 representing the Parliamentary group for Animals. | |||
Cohen rejects ]'s argument that since a brain-damaged human could not exhibit the ability to make moral judgments, that moral judgments cannot be used as the distinguishing characteristic for determining who is awarded rights. Cohen states that the test for moral judgment "is not a test to be administered to humans one by one."<ref> {{cite journal | last = Cohen| first = Carl| | year = 1986| month = October| title = The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research| journal = ]| volume = 315| issue = 14| pages = 865-70| id = PMID 3748104}}</ref> | |||
The preponderance of women in the movement has led to a body of academic literature exploring feminism and animal rights, such as feminism and vegetarianism or ], the oppression of women and animals, and the male association of women and animals with nature and emotion, rather than reason—an association that several feminist writers have embraced.<ref name="Lansbury et al"/> ] writes that women and animals serve the same symbolic function in a patriarchal society: both are "the used"; the dominated, submissive "]".<ref>Gruen (1993), p. 60ff.</ref> When the British feminist ] (1759–1797) published '']'' (1792), ] (1758–1835), a Cambridge philosopher, responded with an anonymous parody, ''A Vindication of the Rights of Brutes'' (1792), saying that Wollstonecraft's arguments for women's rights could be applied equally to animals, a position he intended as '']''.<ref>Singer (1990), p. 1.</ref><!--add something about language; treatment of female animals; feminist care ethic; suffragettes--> In her works '']'' (1990) and ''The Pornography of Meat'' (2004), ] focuses in particular on what she argues are the links between the oppression of women and that of non-human animals.<ref name="green2003">{{cite magazine|author-last=Green |author-first=Elizabeth W. |url=http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2003/10/2/fifteen-questions-for-carol-j-adams/ |title=Fifteen Questions For Carol J. Adams |magazine=The Harvard Crimson |date=10 October 2003 |access-date=22 November 2008}}</ref> | |||
The British philosopher ] has argued that rights can only be assigned to beings who are able to understand them and to reciprocate by observing their own obligations to other beings. Scruton also argues against animal rights on practical grounds. For example, in ''Animal Rights and Wrongs'', he supports foxhunting because it encourages humans to protect the habitat in which foxes live. <ref>{{cite book | last = Scruton | first = Roger | authorlink = Roger Scruton| title = Animal Rights and Wrongs| date = 1998| publisher = ]| id = ISBN 1898309191| pages = pp. 82-85}}</ref> However, he condemns ] because, he says, the animals are not provided with even a minimally acceptable life.<ref>{{cite book | last = Scruton| first = Roger| authorlink = Roger Scruton| title = Animal Rights and Wrongs| date = 1998| publisher = ]| id = ISBN 1898309191| pages = p. 93}}</ref> | |||
===Transhumanism=== | |||
The Foundation for Animal Use and Education states that "ur recognition of the rights of others stems from our unique human character as moral agents — that is, beings capable of making moral judgments and comprehending moral duty. Only human beings are capable of exercising moral judgment and recognizing the rights of one another. Animals do not exercise responsibility as moral agents. They do not recognize the rights of other animals. They kill and eat one another instinctively, as a matter of survival. They act from a combination of conditioning, fear, instinct and intelligence, but they do not exercise moral judgment in the process." {{fact}}<!--what is the Foundation for Animal Use?--> | |||
Some ] argue for animal rights, liberation, and "uplift" of animal consciousness into machines.<ref>{{cite web|title=The Ethics of Animal Enhancement|author=George Dvorsky|author-link=George Dvorsky|url=https://ieet.org/index.php/IEET2/more/dvorsky20110729|access-date=2017-04-24|archive-date=2017-04-25|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170425030415/https://ieet.org/index.php/IEET2/more/dvorsky20110729|url-status=live}}</ref> Transhumanism also understands animal rights on a gradation or spectrum with other types of sentient rights, including human rights and the rights of conscious artificial intelligences (posthuman rights).<ref Name="Evans 2015">{{cite journal | last = Evans | first = Woody | author-link = Woody Evans | title = Posthuman Rights: Dimensions of Transhuman Worlds | journal = Teknokultura | volume = 12 | issue = 2 | date = 2015 | doi = 10.5209/rev_TK.2015.v12.n2.49072 | doi-access = free }}</ref> | |||
===Socialism and anti-capitalism=== | |||
In ''The Animals Issue: Moral Theory in Practice'', the British philosopher Peter Carruthers argues that humans have obligations only to other beings who can take part in a hypothetical ].<ref>{{cite book | last = Carruthers| first = Peter| | title = The Animals Issue: Moral Theory in Practice| edition = | date = 1992| publisher = ]| id = ISBN 0521436893|pages = pp. 90-2}}</ref> thus animals are excluded from the group of beings to whom humans have moral obligations. <ref>{{cite book | last = Carruthers| first = Peter| | title = The Animals Issue: Moral Theory in Practice| edition = | date = 1992| publisher = ]| id = ISBN 0521436893|pages = pp. 141-3}}</ref> | |||
According to sociologist ] of ], the struggle for animal liberation must happen in tandem with a more generalized struggle against human oppression and exploitation under global ]. He says that under a more egalitarian ] system, one that would "allow a more just and peaceful order to emerge" and be "characterized by ] and a democratically controlled state and mass media", there would be "much greater potential to inform the public about vital global issues—and the potential for "campaigns to improve the lives of other animals" to be "more abolitionist in nature."{{sfn|Nibert|2013|p=270}} Philosopher ] of the ] states that the animal liberation movement, as characterized by the ] and its various offshoots, "is a significant threat to global capital." {{Blockquote|... Animal liberation challenges large sectors of the capitalist economy by assailing corporate agriculture and pharmaceutical companies and their suppliers. Far from being irrelevant to social movements, animal rights can form the basis for a broad coalition of progressive social groups and drive changes that strike at the heart of capitalist exploitation of animals, people and the earth.{{sfn|Best|2014|p=103}}}} | |||
====Abolitionist view==== | |||
]'s work (''Introduction to Animal Rights'', et.al.) is based on the premise that if non-human animals are considered to be property then any rights that they may be granted would be directly undermined by that property status. He points out that a call to equally consider the interests of your property against your own interests is absurd. Without the basic right not to be treated as the property of humans, non-human animals have no rights whatsoever, he says. Francione posits that sentience is the only valid determinant for moral standing, unlike Regan who sees qualitative degrees in the subjective experiences of his "subjects-of-a-life" based upon a loose determination of who falls within that category. Francione claims that there is no actual animal-rights movement in the United States, but only an ] movement. In line with his philosophical position and his work in animal-rights law for the Animal Rights Law Project at ], he points out that any effort that does not advocate the abolition of the property status of animals is misguided, in that it inevitably results in the institutionalization of animal exploitation. It is logically inconsistent and doomed never to achieve its stated goal of improving the condition of animals, he argues. Francione holds that a society which regards dogs and cats as family members yet kills cows, chickens, and pigs for food exhibits what he calls "moral schizophrenia". | |||
===Critics=== | |||
==Animal rights in ]== | |||
] in a ] branch, ], 2004-5 ]] | |||
====R. G. Frey==== | |||
Animals are protected under the ], but in general their individual rights have no protection. There are ]s against cruelty to animals, laws that regulate the keeping of animals in cities and on farms, the transit of animals internationally, as well as quarantine and inspection provisions. These laws are designed to protect animals from unnecessary physical harm and to regulate the use of animals as food. In the ], it is possible to create a ] and have the trust empowered to see to the care of a particular animal after the death of the benefactor of the trust. Some individuals create such trusts in their ]. Trusts of this kind can be upheld by the ]s if properly drafted and if the ] is of sound mind. There are several movements in the UK campaigning to require the ] to award greater protection to animals. The legislation, if passed, will introduce a ] of care, whereby a keeper of an animal would commit an offence if he or she fails to take reasonable steps to ensure an animal’s welfare. This concept of giving the animal keeper a duty towards the animal is equivalent to granting the animal a right to proper welfare. The draft bill is supported by an ] campaign. | |||
], professor of philosophy at Bowling Green State University, is a preference utilitarian. In his early work, ''Interests and Rights'' (1980), Frey disagreed with Singer—who wrote in ''Animal Liberation'' (1975) that the interests of nonhuman animals must be given equal consideration when judging the consequences of an act—on the grounds that animals have no interests. Frey argues that interests are dependent on desire, and that no desire can exist without a corresponding belief. Animals have no beliefs, because a belief state requires the ability to hold a second-order belief—a belief about the belief—which he argues requires language: "If someone were to say, e.g. 'The cat believes that the door is locked,' then that person is holding, as I see it, that the cat holds the declarative sentence 'The door is locked' to be true; and I can see no reason whatever for crediting the cat or any other creature which lacks language, including human infants, with entertaining declarative sentences."<ref>Frey (1989), p. 40.</ref> | |||
====Carl Cohen==== | |||
Laws prohibiting cruelity against animals were not uncommon in ancient India. For example, the ]n emperor ] ] to protect several animals, prohibited gratituous killing of all animals, condemned violent acts against animals, and ] for their welfare. The first anti-cruelty law in the West was included in the legal code of the ] in 1641. <ref name=EB3/> In 1822, the British parliament adopted the Martin Act, which forbade the "cruel and improper Treatment" of large domestic animals. <ref name=EB3/> The ''Tierschutzgesetz'' was passed in Germany in 1933 by the ] government. ] passed legislation in 1992 to recognize animals as beings, rather than things, and the protection of animals was enshrined in the ] constitution in 2002, when its upper house of parliament voted to add the words "and animals" to the clause in the constitution obliging the state to protect the "natural foundations of life ... in the interests of future generations." <ref name=CNN1/> | |||
], professor of philosophy at the University of Michigan, argues that rights holders must be able to distinguish between their own interests and what is right. "The holders of rights must have the capacity to comprehend rules of duty governing all, including themselves. In applying such rules, ... must recognize possible conflicts between what is in their own interest and what is just. Only in a community of beings capable of self-restricting moral judgments can the concept of a right be correctly invoked." Cohen rejects Singer's argument that, since a brain-damaged human could not make moral judgments, moral judgments cannot be used as the distinguishing characteristic for determining who is awarded rights. Cohen writes that the test for moral judgment "is not a test to be administered to humans one by one", but should be applied to the capacity of members of the species in general.<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111127200740/http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/phil1200,Spr07/cohen.pdf |date=2011-11-27 }}. Cohen and Regan (2001).</ref> | |||
====Richard Posner==== | |||
The State of ] has banned dissections of animals in elementary and secondary schools; performances by trained animals in circuses; and has banned production of ]. Over a dozen countries, as well as ] and ] in the United States, have passed laws banning either foie gras production, sale, or both. | |||
]: "facts will drive equality."<ref name=Posner/>]] | |||
<!--needs to be written and sourced properly: In Federative Republic of ], State of ], three prosecutors, three professors of Laws and eight students of law suits the habeas corpus action for a ] named Swiss.--> | |||
Judge ] of the ] debated the issue of animal rights in 2001 with Peter Singer.<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170914200057/http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/dialogues/features/2001/animal_rights/_2.html |date=September 14, 2017 }}.</ref> Posner posits that his ] tells him "that human beings prefer their own. If a dog threatens a human infant, even if it requires causing more pain to the dog to stop it, than the dog would have caused to the infant, then we favour the child. It would be monstrous to spare the dog."<ref name=Posner> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110821030817/http://www.slate.com/id/110101/entry/110129/ |date=August 21, 2011 }}; {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150509122917/http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/interviews-debates/200106--.htm |date=2015-05-09 }}, courtesy link on utilitarian.net. | |||
*Also see Posner (2004).</ref> | |||
Singer challenges this by arguing that formerly unequal rights for gays, women, and certain races were justified using the same set of intuitions. Posner replies that equality in civil rights did not occur because of ethical arguments, but because facts mounted that there were no morally significant differences between humans based on race, sex, or sexual orientation that would support inequality. If and when similar facts emerge about humans and animals, the differences in rights will erode too. But facts will drive equality, not ethical arguments that run contrary to instinct, he argues. Posner calls his approach "soft utilitarianism", in contrast to Singer's "hard utilitarianism". He argues: | |||
== Animal rights activism == | |||
] (ALF)]] | |||
{{further|]}} | |||
{{Blockquote|The "soft" utilitarian position on animal rights is a moral intuition of many, probably most, Americans. We realize that animals feel pain, and we think that to inflict pain without a reason is bad. Nothing of practical value is added by dressing up this intuition in the language of philosophy; much is lost when the intuition is made a stage in a logical argument. When kindness toward animals is levered into a duty of weighting the pains of animals and of people equally, bizarre vistas of social engineering are opened up.<ref name=Posner/>}} | |||
In practice, those who advocate animal rights usually boycott a number of industries that use animals. Foremost among these is ], | |||
which produces the majority of ], ]s, and ] in Western industrialized nations. The transportation of farm animals for slaughter, which often involves their ], has in recent years been a major issue of campaigning for animal-rights groups, particularly in the ]. | |||
]: rights imply obligations.]] | |||
The vast majority of animal-rights advocates adopt ] or ] diets; they may also avoid clothes made of animal skins, such as ] shoes, and will not use products such as ], ] products, or certain ]s or ]s known to contain animal ]s. Goods containing ingredients that have been tested on animals are also avoided where possible. Company-wide ]s are common. The ] corporation, for example, ] many of its products on animals, leading many animal-rights supporters to boycott all of their products, including food like peanut butter. | |||
====Roger Scruton==== | |||
Many animal-rights advocates dedicate themselves to educating and persuading the public. Some organizations, like '']'', strive to do this by garnering media attention for animal-rights issues, often using outrageous stunts or advertisements to obtain media coverage for a more serious message. | |||
], the British philosopher, argued that rights imply obligations. Every legal privilege, he wrote, imposes a burden on the one who does not possess that privilege: that is, "your right may be my duty." Scruton therefore regarded the emergence of the animal rights movement as "the strangest cultural shift within the liberal worldview", because the idea of rights and responsibilities is, he argued, distinctive to the human condition, and it makes no sense to spread them beyond our own species.<ref name=Scruton/> | |||
He accused animal rights advocates of "pre-scientific" ], attributing traits to animals that are, he says, ]-like, where "only man is vile." It is within this fiction that the appeal of animal rights lies, he argued. The world of animals is non-judgmental, filled with dogs who return our affection almost no matter what we do to them, and cats who pretend to be affectionate when, in fact, they care only about themselves. It is, he argued, a fantasy, a world of escape.<ref name=Scruton>{{cite magazine |last=Scruton |first=Roger |author-link=Roger Scruton |date=Summer 2000 |title=Animal Rights |url=http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_3_urbanities-animal.html |magazine=City Journal |location=New York |publisher=Manhattan Institute for Policy Research |access-date=2005-12-04 |archive-date=2016-03-03 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303191520/http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_3_urbanities-animal.html |url-status=dead }}</ref> | |||
There is a growing trend in the American animal-rights movement towards devoting all resources to vegetarian outreach. The 9.8 billion animals killed there for food use every year far exceeds the number of animals being exploited in other ways. Groups such as '']'' and '']'' devote their time to exposing factory-farming practices by publishing information for consumers and by organizing undercover investigations. | |||
Scruton singled out ], a prominent Australian philosopher and animal-rights activist, for criticism. He wrote that Singer's works, including '']'', "contain little or no philosophical argument. They derive their radical moral conclusions from a vacuous utilitarianism that counts the pain and pleasure of all living things as equally significant and that ignores just about everything that has been said in our philosophical tradition about the real distinction between persons and animals."<ref name=Scruton/> | |||
A growing number of animal-rights activists engage in ]. This typically involves the removal of animals from infiltrated facilities that use them or the damage of property at such facilities in order to cause financial loss. A number of incidents have involved ] or the threat of violence toward animal ] or associates involved in the use of animals. More extreme activists have attempted ] and other illegal activities to help aid their cause, such as the indimidation campaign to close Darley Oaks farm, which involved ], malicious phonecalls, ] bombs, ] attacks and property destruction, climaxing with the theft of Gladys Hammond's body (the owners' mother-in-law) from a Staffordshire grave. Some of the groups like the ALF and ELF have been regarded as ] groups by countries like USA and UK with more than thousand attacks in one year causing £2.6m of damage to property in the UK alone prompting some experts to state that animal rights now tops the list of causes which prompt violence in the UK.<ref> - ]</ref> Most animal welfare groups condemned the attacks. | |||
] countered this view of rights by distinguishing moral agents and moral patients.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.thevegetariansite.com/ethics_regan.htm|title=Tom Regan: The Case For Animal Rights|website=The Vegetarian Site|access-date=November 2, 2019|archive-date=November 2, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191102054417/https://www.thevegetariansite.com/ethics_regan.htm|url-status=live}}</ref>{{unreliable source?|WP:QUESTIONABLE|date=March 2021}} | |||
There are also a growing number of "]s," in which animal-rights advocates enter businesses to steal animals without trying to hide their identities. Open rescues tend to be carried out by committed individuals who are willing to go to jail if prosecuted, but so far no factory-farm owner has been willing to press charges, perhaps because of the negative publicity that would ensue. However some countries like Britain have proposed stricter laws to curb animal extremists. | |||
==Public attitudes== | |||
==Animal rights and the Holocaust== | |||
According to a paper published in 2000 by Harold Herzog and Lorna Dorr, previous academic surveys of attitudes towards animal rights have tended to suffer from small sample sizes and non-representative groups.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Herzog |first1=Harold |last2=Dorr |first2=Lorna |date=2000 |title=Electronically Available Surveys of Attitudes Toward Animals |journal=Society & Animals |volume=10 |issue=2}}</ref> However, a number of factors appear to correlate with the attitude of individuals regarding the treatment of animals and animal rights. These include gender, age, occupation, religion, and level of education. There has also been evidence to suggest that prior experience with ] may be a factor in people's attitudes.<ref name="SignalAndTaylor2006">{{cite journal |last1=Apostol |first1=L. |last2=Rebega |first2=O.L. |last3=Miclea |first3=M. |date=2013 |title=Psychological and Socio-Demographic Predictors of Attitudes towards Animals |journal=Social and Behavioural Sciences |issue=78 |pages=521–525}}</ref> | |||
{{main|Animal rights and the Holocaust}} | |||
Some writers and groups have drawn analogies between the treatment of animals today and the Holocaust, which the ] has criticized as "trivializing the murder of six million Jews." <ref>, ], retrieved August 9, 2006.</ref> | |||
According to some studies, women are more likely to empathize with the cause of animal rights than men.<ref name="SignalAndTaylor2006" /><ref>{{cite journal |last=Herzog |first=Harold |date=2007 |title=Gender Differences in Human-Animal Interactions: A Review |journal=Anthrozoös|volume=20 |issue=1 |pages=7–21|doi=10.2752/089279307780216687 |s2cid=14988443 }}</ref> A 1996 study suggested that factors that may partially explain this discrepancy include attitudes towards ] and science, scientific literacy, and the presence of a greater emphasis on "nurturance or compassion" among women.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Pifer |first=Linda |date=1996 |title=Exploring the Gender Gap in Young Adults' Attitudes about Animal Research |journal=Society and Animals |volume=4 |issue=1 |pages=37–52 |doi=10.1163/156853096X00034 |pmid=11654528 |url=http://www.animalsandsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/pifer1.pdf |access-date=2021-06-04 |archive-date=2021-09-17 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210917222336/https://www.animalsandsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/pifer1.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> | |||
In 2003, PETA organized a touring exhibition titled "Holocaust on your Plate," which mixed imagery of Jews in concentration camps with animals being killed and abused. PETA president ] has been quoted as saying "Six million Jews died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughterhouses." <ref>Shafran, Avi. , ''The Jewish News Weekly of Northern California'', May 20, 2005, retrieved August 9, 2006.</ref> The National Primate Research Exhibition Hall, a project of animal rights activists in ], compares itself to the Holocaust Memorial at ] and uses Holocaust imagery in its exhibits. <ref name=ADL1><ref>, ], retrieved August 9, 2006.</ref> In 2001, the animal rights website meat.org contained an "Animal Holocaust" section made up of pictures of animals emblazoned with the words "Holocaust Victim". The Northwest Animal Rights Network of Seattle has published an ad which juxtaposes pictured of dead, naked Holocaust victims with photographs of dead cows and a swastika. <ref>, ], retrieved August 9, 2006.</ref> | |||
A common misconception on the concept of animal rights is that its proponents want to grant non-human animals the exact same legal rights as humans, such as the ]. This is not the case, as the concept is that animals should have rights with equal consideration to their interests (for example, cats do not have any interest in voting, so they should not have the right to vote).<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/rights/rights_1.shtml|title=Ethics - Animal ethics: Animal rights|website=BBC Online|access-date=February 10, 2022|df=mdy-all|archive-date=March 24, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220324011846/https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/rights/rights_1.shtml|url-status=live}}</ref> A 2016 study found that support for ] may not be based on cogent philosophical rationales, and more open debate is warranted.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Joffe |first1=Ari R. |last2=Bara |first2=Meredith |last3=Anton |first3=Natalie |last4=Nobis |first4=Nathan |date=2016-03-29 |title=The ethics of animal research: a survey of the public and scientists in North America |journal=BMC Medical Ethics |volume=17 |page=17 |doi=10.1186/s12910-016-0100-x |issn=1472-6939 |pmc=4812627 |pmid=27025215 |df=mdy-all |doi-access=free }}</ref> | |||
==Animal rights and anti-Semitism== | |||
Some ] have used animal rights arguments as a means of promoting hatred of Jews. In the 1930s, the ]s used photographs of ] slaughter as part of their campaign to inflame anti-Jewish sentiment. More recently, former ] leader ] supported the ] campaign against the practice of kosher slaughter in the United States. | |||
A 2007 survey to examine whether or not people who believed in ] were more likely to support animal rights than ] and believers in ] found that this was largely the case—according to the researchers, the respondents who were strong ] and believers in ] were less likely to advocate for animal rights than those who were less fundamentalist in their beliefs. The findings extended previous research, such as a 1992 study which found that 48% of animal rights activists were ] or ].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=DeLeeuwa |first1=Jamie |last2=Galen |first2=Luke |last3=Aebersold |first3=Cassandra |last4=Stanton |first4=Victoria |date=2007 |url=http://www.animalsandsociety.org/assets/library/745_s3.pdf |title=Support for Animal Rights as a Function of Belief in Evolution, Religious Fundamentalism, and Religious Denomination |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130620141651/http://www.animalsandsociety.org/assets/library/745_s3.pdf |archive-date=2013-06-20 |df=mdy-all |journal=Society and Animals |issue=15 |pages=353–363}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Galvin |first1=Shelley L. |last2=Herzog |first2=Harold A. Jr. |date=1992 |title=Ethical Ideology, Animal Rights Activism, And Attitudes Toward The Treatment Of Animals |journal=Ethics & Behavior |volume=2 |issue=3 |pages=141–149 |doi=10.1207/s15327019eb0203_1 |pmid=11651362 |url=https://animalstudiesrepository.org/acwp_sata/23 |access-date=2020-08-29 |archive-date=2020-05-31 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200531171029/https://animalstudiesrepository.org/acwp_sata/23/ |url-status=live }}</ref> A 2019 study in '']'' found that those who have positive attitudes toward animal rights also tend to have a positive view of universal healthcare, favor reducing discrimination against African Americans, the LGBT community and undocumented immigrants, and expanding welfare to aid the poor.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Park|first1=Yon Soo|last2=Valentino|first2=Benjamin|date=July 26, 2019|title=Who supports animal rights? Here's what we found.|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/07/26/who-supports-animal-rights-heres-what-we-found/|newspaper=The Washington Post|access-date=July 26, 2019|df=mdy-all|archive-date=July 26, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190726122439/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/07/26/who-supports-animal-rights-heres-what-we-found/|url-status=live}}</ref> | |||
Kathleen Kete, associate professor of history at ], ], argues that, although the animal liberation movement is regarded as progressive, in fact the history of animal rights belongs neither to the right nor to the left. Animal protection concerns fall within both progressive and repressive agendas. | |||
Two surveys found that attitudes towards animal rights tactics, such as ], are very diverse within the animal rights communities. Near half (50% and 39% in two surveys) of activists do not support direct action. One survey concluded "it would be a mistake to portray animal rights activists as homogeneous."<ref name="SignalAndTaylor2006"/><ref>{{cite journal |title=An attitude survey of animal rights activists |journal=Psychological Science |year=1991 |volume=2 |issue=3 |pages=194–196 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-9280.1991.tb00131.x |s2cid=145549994 |df=mdy-all|last1=Plous |first1=S. }}</ref> | |||
In the 1930s and 40s, the anti-vivisectionist movement saw vivisection as "the extreme expression of European rationalism," says Kete. "It represented the evils of modernity. In some circles in Switzerland and Germany, an earlier representation of modernity and its dangers — the ] — merged with the image of the scientist. 'Jewish science' was targeted by anti-vivisectionists and 'Jewish' treatment of animals — evidenced in kosher butchering, and countered by vegetarianism — was deplored." <ref name=Najafi>Najafi, Sina. , ''Cabinet'', Issue 4, Fall 2001.</ref> | |||
Even though around 90% of US adults regularly consume meat,<ref>{{Cite web|last1=Berg|first1=Jennifer|last2=Jackson|first2=Chris|date=May 12, 2021|title=Nearly nine in ten Americans consume meat as part of their diet|url=https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/nearly-nine-ten-americans-consume-meat-part-their-diet|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210720111314/https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/nearly-nine-ten-americans-consume-meat-part-their-diet|archive-date=July 20, 2021|access-date=February 13, 2022|website=Ipsos}}</ref> almost half of them appear to support a ban on slaughterhouses: in ]'s 2017 survey of 1,094 U.S. adults' attitudes toward animal farming, 49% "support a ban on factory farming, 47% support a ban on slaughterhouses, and 33% support a ban on animal farming".<ref name="Ettinger">{{cite news |last=Ettinger |first=Jill |date=November 21, 2017 |title=70% of Americans Want Better Treatment for Farm Animals, Poll Finds |url=http://www.organicauthority.com/70-of-americans-want-better-treatment-for-farm-animals-poll-finds/ |newspaper=Organic Authority |access-date=13 February 2022 |archive-date=29 September 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180929115534/http://www.organicauthority.com/70-of-americans-want-better-treatment-for-farm-animals-poll-finds/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="vox 2">{{cite web |last=Piper |first=Kelsey |date=November 5, 2018 |title=California and Florida voters could change the lives of millions of animals on Election Day |url=https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2018/10/17/17955642/california-florida-voters-animal-welfare-election-day |publisher=] |access-date=13 February 2022 |archive-date=13 February 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220213174934/https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2018/10/17/17955642/california-florida-voters-animal-welfare-election-day |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Reese Anthis|first=Jacy|date=November 20, 2017|title=Animals, Food, and Technology (AFT) Survey 2017|url=https://www.sentienceinstitute.org/animal-farming-attitudes-survey-2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220104070248/https://www.sentienceinstitute.org/animal-farming-attitudes-survey-2017|archive-date=January 4, 2022|access-date=February 13, 2022|website=Sentience Institute|series=Surveys}}</ref> The 2017 survey was replicated by researchers at the ], who found similar results: 73% of respondents answered "yes" to the question "Were you aware that slaughterhouses are where livestock are killed and processed into meat, such that, without them, you would not be able to consume meat?"<ref name="food dive">{{cite web|last=Siegner|first=Cathy|date=January 25, 2018|title=Survey: Most consumers like meat, slaughterhouses not so much|url=https://www.fooddive.com/news/survey-most-consumers-like-meat-slaughterhouses-not-so-much/515301/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211102193320/https://www.fooddive.com/news/survey-most-consumers-like-meat-slaughterhouses-not-so-much/515301/|archive-date=November 2, 2021|access-date=February 13, 2022|publisher=Food Dive}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last1=Norwood |first1=Bailey |last2=Murray |first2=Susan |title=FooDS Food Deman Survey, Volume 5, Issue 9: January 18, 2018 |url=http://agecon.okstate.edu/files/january%202018.pdf |access-date=February 13, 2022 |website=Oklahoma State University |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190806000018/http://agecon.okstate.edu/files/january%202018.pdf |archive-date=6 August 2019 |url-status=dead}}</ref> | |||
The Nazis, argues Kete, brought in the most comprehensive animal protection laws in Europe, including the banning of kosher slaughter. Vivisecton was chacterized as "Jewish" and banned. <ref name=Arluke>Arluke, Arnold & Sax, Boria. "Understanding Nazi Animal Protection and the Holocaust", ''Anthrozoos'' 5(1):6-31; 1992) cited by Kathleen Kete in Najafi, Sina. , ''Cabinet'', Issue 4, Fall 2001.</ref> Arnold Arluke and Boria Sax argue that Nazi animal protection measures "may have been a legal veil to level an attack on the Jews. In making this attack, the Nazis allied themselves with animals since both were portrayed as victims of 'oppressors' such as Jews.'" Composer ] urged attacks on laboratories and physical assault on vivisectionists, whom he associated with Jews — presumably because of kosher killing methods.<ref name=Cockburn>Arluke, Arnold & Sax, Boria. "Understanding Nazi Animal Protection and the Holocaust", ''Anthrozoos'' 5(1):6-31; 1992) cited in Cockburn, Alexander , ''Counterpunch'', August 18, 2005</ref> | |||
In the U.S., many public protest slaughters were held in the late 1960s and early 1970s by the ]. Protesting low prices for meat, farmers killed their animals in front of media representatives. The carcasses were wasted and not eaten. This effort backfired because it angered television audiences to see animals needlessly and wastefully killed.<ref>{{cite thesis |page=19 |url=http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=miami1050951369 |title=Growing a new agrarian myth: the american agriculture movement, identity, and the call to save the family farm |first=Ryan J. |last=Stockwell |access-date=11 May 2020 |archive-date=15 April 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230415153833/https://etd.ohiolink.edu/apexprod/rws_olink/r/1501/10?clear=10&p10_accession_num=miami1050951369 |url-status=live }}</ref> | |||
"Nazi German identity," Arluke and Sax conclude, "relied on the blurring of boundaries between humans and animals and the constructing of a unique phylogenetic hierarchy that altered conventional humananimal distinctions and imperative ...As part of the natural order, Germans of Aryan stock were to be bred like farm stock, while 'lower animals' or 'subhumans,' such as the Jews and other victims of the Holocaust, were to be exterminated like vermin as testament to the new 'natural' and biological order conceived under the Third Reich." <ref name=Cockburn/> | |||
The important point, says Kete, is that the first 20th-century solution to "the problem of what Keith Thomas calls 'the dethronement of humans'" was seen in Nazism. "The radical right in the 1930s and 1940s produced the worst possible solution to this problem," Kete argues. "Animal liberation, on the left, is exploring some others. It is a mark of ]'s importance that he has raised for us this most central philosophical issue of our time." <ref name=Najafi/> | |||
In the past decade, Belgium, France, Germany and Holland have banned '']'', the ritual slaughter of animals required by ], bringing the total number of European countries banning the practice to eight. The Swiss banned kosher slaughter in 1902 and saw an anti-Semitic backlash against a proposal to refuse to lift it a century later. <ref name=HBerlin>Berlin, Howard, , NewsJournal, March 8, 2004.</ref> Both Holland and Switzerland have considered extending the ban in order to prohibit importing kosher products. The bans are seen by some commentators as part of a "new wave of ugly, and sometimes violent, anti-Semitism sweep through the European continent." <ref name=WND>World Net Daily, , December 3, 2002.</ref> | |||
*''see also ]'' | |||
==Animal rights and human rights== | |||
], a writer on environmental issues, said in a 1992 speech to the Northeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies: "Strict observance of animal rights forbids even direct protection of people and their values against nature's many predators. Losses to people are acceptable ... losses to animals are not. Logically then, beavers may change the flow of streams, but Man must not. Locusts may denude hundreds of miles of plant life ... but Man must not. Cougars may eat sheep and chickens, but Man must not."<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.econot.com/page4.html| title = Environmentalism or Individualism?| author = Robert James Bidinotto| accessdate= 2006-08-01}}</ref> | |||
When given the choice between rescuing a human baby or a dog after a lifeboat capsized, Susan Rich, PeTA Outreach Coordinator, answered, "I wouldn't know for sure ... I might choose the human baby or I might choose the dog."<ref>{{cite video|people= Susan Rich|title= Steve Kane Show|publisher= WIOD-AM Radio Miami, FL|year= 1989}} Cited by {{cite web |url = http://www.naiaonline.org/articles/archives/animalrightsquote.htm| title = The National Animal Interest Alliance| accessdate= 2006-08-01}}</ref> | |||
], animal rights philosopher, answered "If it were a retarded baby and a bright dog, I'd save the dog." <ref>Regan, Tom. ''"Animal Rights, Human Wrongs"'', speech given at the University of Wisonsin, Madison, 1989-10-27. Cited by {{cite web | url = http://www.naiaonline.org/articles/archives/animalrightsquote.htm| title = The National Animal Interest Alliance| accessdate= 2006-08-01}}</ref> | |||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
{{Div col}} | |||
*] | |||
*{{Portal-inline|size=tiny|Animals}} | |||
*] | |||
*] | *] | ||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | *] | ||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | *] | ||
*] | *] | ||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | *] | ||
*] | *] | ||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
{{Div col end}} | |||
==Notes== | |||
<div class="references-small"> | |||
<references/> | |||
</div> | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
{{Reflist}} | |||
<div class="references-small"> | |||
*"Animal rights," ''Encyclopaedia Britannica'', retrieved June 16, 2006. | |||
*"Ethics," ''Encyclopaedia Britannica'', retrieved June 17, 2006. | |||
*"Environmentalism," Encyclopaedia Britannica'', retrieved June 17, 2006. | |||
*. | |||
* a ]-produced slaughterhouse tour narrated by ] | |||
*, Association of American Medical Colleges, retrieved July 12, 2006. | |||
*]. , 1781; this edition edited by Burns, J.H. & Hart, H.L.A. Athlone Press 1970. ISBN 0485132117 | |||
*]. ''Rights from Wrongs: A Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights'', 2004. | |||
*Frey, R.G. ''Interests and Rights: The Case Against Animals'', Clarendon Press, 1980. ISBN 0198244215 | |||
*George. Kathryn Paxton. ''Animal, Vegetable, or Woman?'', State University of New York Press. ISBN 0791446875 | |||
*Guither, Harold D. ''Animal Rights: History and Scope of a Radical Social Movement''. Southern Illinois University Press; reissue edition 1997. ISBN 0809321998 | |||
*LaFollette, Hugh & Shanks, Niall. (pdf), ''Philosophy'', January 1996, vol 71, issue 275. | |||
*Michael, Steven. , ''The Physiologist'', Volume 47, No. 6, December 2004. | |||
*]. ''The Case for Animal Rights'', New York: Routledge, 1984, ISBN 0520049047 | |||
*]. '']'', 1754. | |||
*]. ''Animal Rights and Wrongs'', 1997. | |||
*Scruton, Roger. , ''City Journal'', Summer 2000. | |||
*]. ''Animal Liberation'', 1975; second edition, New York: Avon Books, 1990, ISBN 0940322005 | |||
*]. ''Animals and Ethics''. Broadview Press, 2003. | |||
==Bibliography== | |||
== Further reading == | |||
Books and papers are cited in short form in the footnotes, with full citations here. News and other sources are cited in full in the footnotes. | |||
===Books about animal rights=== | |||
{{Refbegin|30em}} | |||
* ]. ''The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory.'' New York: Continuum, 1996. | |||
*{{cite book |author-link=Carol Adams (feminist) |last=Adams |first=Carol J. |date=1996 |title=The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory |publisher=Continuum}} {{ISBN|1501312839}} | |||
* ____________. ''The Pornography of Meat.'' New York: Continuum, 2004. | |||
* |
*{{cite book |editor-last=Adams |editor1-first=Carol J. |editor2-first=Josephine |editor-link1=Carol Adams (feminist) |editor2-last=Donovan |editor-link2=Josephine Donovan |date=1995 |title=Animals and Women: Feminist Theoretical Explorations |publisher=Duke University Press}} {{ISBN|0822316552}} | ||
*{{cite book |author-link=Carol Adams (feminist) |last=Adams |first=Carol J. |date=2004 |title=The Pornography of Meat |publisher=Continuum}} {{ISBN|9781590565100}} | |||
*____________. ''The Social Construction of Edible Bodies'' | |||
*Benthall, Jonathan (2007). , ''Anthropology Today'', volume 23, issue 2, April. | |||
*]. ''Meeting a Gorilla''. | |||
*] (1781). ''Principles of Penal Law''. {{ISBN|1379912326}} | |||
*Anstötz, Christopher. ''Profoundly Intellectually Disabled Humans'' | |||
*] (2009). "The Moral Standing of Animals", in ]. ''Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare''. Greenwood. {{ISBN|0313352593}} | |||
*Auxter, Thomas. ''The Right Not to Be Eaten'' | |||
*] (2011a). "Introduction," in Tom Beauchamp and ] (eds.). ''The Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics''. Oxford University Press. {{ISBN|019935197X}} | |||
*Barnes, Donald J. ''A Matter of Change'' | |||
*] (2011b). "Rights Theory and Animal Rights," in Beauchamp and Frey, ''op cit''. {{ISBN|019935197X}} | |||
*Barry, Brian. ''Why Not Noah's Ark?'' | |||
*{{cite book |last= Best|first=Steven|date=2014 |title=The Politics of Total Liberation: Revolution for the 21st Century|publisher=] |isbn=978-1137471116|doi=10.1057/9781137440723}} | |||
*Bekoff, Marc. ''Common Sense, Cognitive Ethology and Evolution''. | |||
*] (1977). ''The Moral Status of Animals''. Oxford University Press. {{ISBN|0192830406}} | |||
*Cantor, David. ''Items of Property''. | |||
*] (1986). {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111127200740/http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/phil1200,Spr07/cohen.pdf |date=2011-11-27 }}, ''New England Journal of Medicine'', vol. 315, issue 14, October, pp. 865–870. | |||
*Cate, Dexter L. ''The Island of the Dragon'' | |||
*Cohen, Carl and Regan, Tom (2001). ''The Animal Rights Debate''. Rowman & Littlefield. {{ISBN|0847696626}} | |||
*Cavalieri, Paola. ''The Great Ape Project — and Beyond'' | |||
*] (ed.) (1988). "] Ethics" and "]." ''Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy''. | |||
*Carwardine, Mark. ''Meeting a Gorilla'' | |||
*] (2002). ''Animal Rights: A Very Short Introduction''. Oxford University Press. | |||
*] ''The Moral Status of Animals''. (Clarendon Press 1977; pbk 1984). | |||
*] (1993). "Animal Rights and Feminist Theory," in ]. ''Ecofeminism: Women, Animals, Nature''. Temple University Press. | |||
*_______________. ''The Nature of the Beast''. (Oxford University Press 1982; pbk 1984) | |||
*] (1996). ''Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement''. Temple University Press. | |||
*_______________. ''Animals and their Moral Standing''. (Routledge 1997) | |||
*] (1995). ''Animals, Property, and the Law''. Temple University Press. | |||
*_______________. ''The Political Animal''. (Routledge 1999) | |||
* |
*] (2008). ''Animals as Persons''. Columbia University Press. | ||
* |
*Francione, Gary and Garner, Robert (2010). ''The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition Or Regulation?'' Columbia University Press. | ||
*Fellenz, Mark R. (2007). ''The Moral Menagerie: Philosophy and Animal Rights''. University of Illinois Press. | |||
*]. ''Gaps in the mind''. | |||
*] (1980). ''Interests and Rights: The Case against Animals''. Clarendon Press. | |||
* Dunayer, Joan. "Animal Equality, Language and Liberation" 2001 | |||
*] (1989). "Why Animals Lack Beliefs and Desires," in Peter Singer and Tom Regan (eds.). ''Animal Rights and Human Obligations''. Prentice Hall. | |||
*]. ''Introduction to Animal Rights, Your child or the dog?'', Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2000 | |||
*] (2004). ''Animals, Politics and Morality''. Manchester University Press. | |||
* Kean, Hilda. ''Animal Rights: Political and Social Change in Britain since 1800'', London: Reaktion Books, 1998 | |||
*] (2005). ''The Political Theory of Animals Rights''. Manchester University Press. | |||
* Nibert, David. ''Animal Rights, Human Rights: Entanglements of Oppression and Liberation'', New York: Rowman and Litterfield, 2002 | |||
*Giannelli, Michael A. (1985). "Three Blind Mice, See How They Run: A Critique of Behavioral Research With Animals". In M.W. Fox & L.D. Mickley (eds.), Advances in Animal Welfare Science 1985/1986 (pp. 109–164). Washington, DC: The Humane Society of the United States | |||
* Patterson, Charles. ''Eternal Treblinka: Our Treatment of Animals and the Holocaust''. New York: Lantern, 2002. ISBN 1-930051-99-9 | |||
*] (1993). "Dismantling Oppression: An Analysis of the Connection Between Women and Animals", in ]. ''Ecofeminism: Women, Animals, Nature''. Temple University Press. | |||
*] ''Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes towards Speciesism'', Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1989 | |||
*Griffin, Donald (1984). ''Animal Thinking''. Harvard University Press. | |||
*Scarce, Rik. Eco-Warriors (2006) (ISBN 1598740288) | |||
* Horta, Oscar (2010). "What Is Speciesism?", ''The Journal of Environmental and Agricultural Ethics'', Vol. 23, No. 3, June, pp. 243–266. | |||
*]. ''Animal Rights and Wrongs'' Claridge Press, 2000 | |||
*] (2000a). ''On Virtue Ethics''. Oxford University Press. | |||
*], "Animal Liberation". | |||
*] (2000b). ''Ethics, Humans and Other Animals''. Routledge. | |||
* Spiegal, Marjorie. ''The Dreaded Comparison: Human and Animal Slavery'', New York: Mirror Books, 1996. | |||
*Jakopovich, Daniel (2021). {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221129010538/https://onlineacademiccommunity.uvic.ca/asri/2021/10/17/the-uks-animal-welfare-sentience-bill-excludes-the-vast-majority-of-animals-why-we-should-expand-our-moral-circle-to-include-invertebrates/ |date=2022-11-29 }}, ''Animals & Society Research Initiative, University of Victoria'', Canada. | |||
* Steeve, Peter H. (ed.) ''Animal Others: On Ethics, Ontology, and Animal Life.'' New York: SUNY Press, 1999. | |||
*] (1785). '']''. | |||
* ]. ''Animals and Ethics''. Broadview Press, 2003 | |||
*] (1995). {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200413040407/https://www.jstor.org/stable/4289385 |date=2020-04-13 }}, ''History Workshop Journal'', No. 40 (Autumn), pp. 16–38. | |||
* Weil, Zoe. ''The Power and Promise of Humane Education.'' British Columbia: New Society Publishers, 2004. | |||
*{{cite book |last=Kelch |first=Thomas G. |date=2011 |title=Globalization and Animal Law |publisher=Kluwer Law International}} | |||
* Wolfe, Cary. ''Animal Rites: American Culture, the Discourse of Species, and Posthumanist Theory'', Chicago: University of Chicago Press: 2003. | |||
*] (1985). ''The Old Brown Dog: Women, Workers, and Vivisection in Edwardian England''. University of Wisconsin Press. | |||
* Wolch, Jennifer, & Emel, Jody. ''Animal Geographies: Place, Politics, and Identity in the Nature-Culture Borderlands.'' New York: Verso, 1998. | |||
*Legge, Debbi and Brooman, Simon (1997). ''Law Relating to Animals''. Cavendish Publishing. {{ISBN|1859412386}} | |||
<!--books to add | |||
*Leneman, Leah (1999). "No Animal Food: The Road to Veganism in Britain, 1909–1944," ''Society and Animals'', 7, 1–5. | |||
Ambiguous Apes | |||
*] (1693). ''Some Thoughts Concerning Education''. | |||
Contextual Moral Vegetarianism | |||
*] (2004). "Of Mice and Men," in Nussbaum and Sunstein, ''op cit''. | |||
The Third Chimpanzee | |||
*Mason, Peter (1997). ''The Brown Dog Affair''. Two Sevens Publishing. | |||
What's in a Classification? | |||
*] (1984). ''Animals and Why They Matter''. University of Georgia Press. {{ISBN|0820320412}} | |||
The Rights of Animals and Future Generations | |||
*Molland, Neil (2004). "Thirty Years of Direct Action" in Best and Nocella, ''op cit''. | |||
Chimpanzees’ Use of Sign Language | |||
*Monaghan, Rachael (2000). "Terrorism in the Name of Animal Rights," in Taylor, Maxwell and Horgan, John. ''The Future of Terrorism''. Routledge. | |||
Chimpanzees’ Use of Sign Language | |||
*Murray, L. (2006). {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110726021231/http://advocacy.britannica.com/blog/advocacy/2006/11/the-aspca-pioneers-in-animal-welfare/ |date=2011-07-26 }}, ''Encyclopædia Britannica's Advocacy for Animals''. | |||
Personhood, Property and Legal Competence | |||
*] (1989). ''The Rights of Nature: A History of Environmental Ethics''. University of Wisconsin Press. | |||
The Silver Spring Monkeys | |||
*] (2004). "The ALF: Who, Why, and What?", in ] and Anthony Nocella. (eds).''Terrorists or Freedom Fighters? Reflections on the Liberation of Animals''. Lantern 2004. | |||
Chimpanzees - Bridging the Gap | |||
*{{cite book |last=Nibert |first=David |date=2013 |title=Animal Oppression and Human Violence: Domesecration, Capitalism, and Global Conflict |url=http://cup.columbia.edu/book/animal-oppression-and-human-violence/9780231151894 |location= |publisher=] |isbn=978-0231151894 |access-date=2022-09-14 |archive-date=2022-11-04 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221104123609/http://cup.columbia.edu/book/animal-oppression-and-human-violence/9780231151894 |url-status=live }} | |||
The Case for the Personhood of Gorillas | |||
*] (2004). "Beyond Compassion and Humanity: Justice for Nonhuman Animals", in ] and Martha Nussbaum (eds.). ''Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions''. Oxford University Press. | |||
Fit to Be Tamed | |||
*] (2006). ''Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership''. Belknap Press. | |||
From Property to Person | |||
*] and ] (June 15, 2001). {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170914200057/http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/dialogues/features/2001/animal_rights/_2.html |date=2017-09-14 }}, ''Slate''. | |||
Who's Like Us? | |||
*] and ] (2004). "Animal rights" in Sunstein and Nussbaum, ''op cit''. | |||
Who's Like Us? | |||
*] (2009). "Darwin, Charles," in Bekoff, ''op cit''. | |||
Animal Rights in the Political Arena | |||
*Redclift, Michael R. (2010). ''The International Handbook of Environmental Sociology''. Edward Elgar Publishing. | |||
Against Zoos | |||
*] (1983). '']''. University of California Press. | |||
Great Apes and the Human Resistance to Equality | |||
*] (2001). ''Defending Animal Rights''. University of Illinois Press. | |||
Ask No Questions | |||
*] (1981). ''Animal Rights and Human Morality''. Prometheus Books. | |||
Spirits Dressed in Furs? | |||
*] (1989). ''The Unheeded Cry: Animal Consciousness, Animal Pain, and Science''. New York: Oxford University Press. | |||
Like Driving a Cadillac | |||
*] (2007). {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200728054434/https://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v8/n6/full/7400996.html |date=2020-07-28 }}, ''Nature'', EMBO Reports 8, 6, pp. 521–525. | |||
Brave New Farm? | |||
*] (2009) . ''Animal Rights. A Defense''. Palgrave Macmillan. | |||
Apes, Humans, Aliens, Vampires and Robots | |||
*] (2000) . ''Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes Towards Speciesism''. Berg. | |||
Persons and Non-Persons | |||
*] (1985). {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160413211030/http://www.jstor.org/stable/20014103 |date=2016-04-13 }}, ''American Philosophical Quarterly'', Vol. 22, No. 3 (July), pp. 251–257. | |||
The Concept of Beastliness | |||
*] (1998). ''Animal Rights and Wrongs''. Claridge Press. | |||
The Wahokies | |||
*] (2000). {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303191520/http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_3_urbanities-animal.html |date=2016-03-03 }}, ''City Journal'', summer. | |||
Humans, Nonhumans and Personhood | |||
*] (April 5, 1973). {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100224090339/http://www.nybooks.com/articles/article-preview?article_id=9900 |date=2010-02-24 }}, '']'', Volume 20, Number 5. | |||
Constraints and Animals | |||
*] (1990) . ''Animal Liberation''. ]. | |||
The Silver Spring Monkeys | |||
*] (2000) . ''Ethics into Action: ] and the Animal Rights Movement''. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. | |||
The Case for the Personhood of Gorillas | |||
*] (2003). {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100330223321/http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16276 |date=2010-03-30 }}, ''The New York Review of Books'', vol 50, no. 8, May 15. | |||
The Post-Darwinian Transition | |||
*] (2004). "Ethics Beyond Species and Beyond Instincts," in Sunstein and Nussbaum, ''op cit''. | |||
A Basis for (Interspecies) Equality | |||
*] (2011) . ''Practical Ethics''. Cambridge University Press. | |||
A Reply to VanDeVeer | |||
*] (1981) {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160219072849/http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1154902/pdf/jmedeth00155-0044.pdf |date=2016-02-19 }}, ''Journal of Medical Ethics''. June, 7(2): 95–102. | |||
Do Animals Have a Right to Liberty? | |||
*] (1980). ''Animal Suffering: The Science of Animal Welfare''. Chapman and Hall. | |||
Why Darwinians Should Support Equal Treatment | |||
*Stucki, Saskia (2020) {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210109121601/https://academic.oup.com/ojls/article/40/3/533/5862901 |date=2021-01-09 }}, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 40:533-560. | |||
Do Animals Have a Right to Life? | |||
*] (2004). "Introduction: What are Animal Rights?" in Sunstein and Nussbaum, ''op cit''. | |||
Ill-gotten Gains | |||
*] and ] (2005). ''Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions''. Oxford University Press. {{ISBN|0195305108}} | |||
The Case for Animal Rights | |||
*Taylor, Angus (2009). ''Animals and Ethics: An Overview of the Philosophical Debate''. Broadview Press. | |||
Animal Rights, Endangered Species and Human Survival | |||
*] (1792). "A Vindication of the Rights of Brutes," in Craciun, Adriana (2002). ''A Routledge Literary Sourcebook on Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Woman''. Routledge. | |||
The Ascent of Apes — Broadening the Moral Community | |||
*] (2005). {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160413170400/http://www.jstor.org/stable/25115834 |date=2016-04-13 }}, ''The Journal of Ethics'', Vol. 9, No. 3/4, pp. 403–433. | |||
Experiments on Animals | |||
*] (2007). "Of Mice and Men: Equality and Animals" in Nils Holtug, and Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen (eds.) (2007). ''Egalitarianism: New Essays on the Nature and Value of Equality''. Oxford University Press. | |||
Sentientism | |||
*{{cite book |author-link=Paul Waldau |last=Waldau |first=Paul |date=2011 |title=Animal Rights: What Everyone Needs to Know |publisher=Oxford University Press}} | |||
Speciesism in the Laboratory | |||
*Walker, Stephen (1983). ''Animal Thoughts''. Routledge. | |||
Aping Persons — Pro and Con | |||
*Weir, Jack (2009). "Virtue Ethics," in ]. ''Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare''. Greenwood. {{ISBN|0313352593}} | |||
Images of Death and Life | |||
*Williams, Erin E. and DeMello, Margo (2007). ''Why Animals Matter''. Prometheus Books. | |||
Ethics and the New Animal Liberation Movement | |||
*] (2000). ''Rattling the Cage: Toward Legal Rights for Animals''. Da Capo Press. | |||
All Animals Are Equal | |||
*] (2002). ''Drawing the Line: Science and the Case for Animal Rights''. Perseus. | |||
Do Animals Feel Pain? | |||
*] (2004). "Animal Rights, One Step at a Time," in Sunstein and Nussbaum, ''op cit''. | |||
Animal Liberation at 30 | |||
*] (2007). {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081118132310/https://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9007642/animal-rights |date=2008-11-18 }}, ''Encyclopædia Britannica''. | |||
A Vegetarian Philosophy | |||
{{refend}} | |||
The Forgotten Animal Issue | |||
Fighting to Win | |||
The Scientific Basis for Assessing Suffering in Animals | |||
The Limits of Trooghaft | |||
The Chimp Farm | |||
They Are Us | |||
Defending Animals by Appeal to Rights | |||
From Property to Person | |||
An Ecological Argument for Vegetarianism | |||
Language and the Orang-utan | |||
'They Clearly Now See the Link': Militant Voices | |||
Dietethics: Its Influence on Future Farming Patterns | |||
--> | |||
==Further reading== | |||
=== Animal rights in philosophy and law === | |||
{{Wikiquote}} | |||
* . | |||
{{Refbegin|30em}} | |||
* | |||
*] (2002). , The Animal Legal and Historical Center at Michigan State University College of Law. | |||
* . | |||
*, The Animal Legal and Historical Center at Michigan State University College of Law. | |||
* | |||
*] (ed.) (2009). ''The Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare''. Greenwood. | |||
* | |||
*] and Nocella II, Anthony J. (eds). (2004). ''Terrorists or Freedom Fighters? Reflections on the Liberation of Animals.'' ] | |||
* . | |||
*] and Nouët, Jean-Claude (eds.) (1998). ''The Universal Declaration of Animal Rights''. Ligue Française des Droits de l'Animal. | |||
* | |||
*] (1993). , in Cavalieri, Paola and Singer, Peter (eds.). ''The Great Ape Project''. St. Martin's Griffin. | |||
* . | |||
*] (1997). ''Babies and Beasts: The Argument from Marginal Cases''. University of Illinois Press. | |||
* . | |||
*{{cite book|title=Respecting Animals: A Balanced Approach to Our Relationship with Pets, Food, and Wildlife |year=2018 |first=David S. |last=Favre |publisher=Prometheus |isbn=978-1633884250}} | |||
*], "Let them eat oysters" (review of ], ''Animal Liberation Now'', Penguin, 2023, {{ISBN|978 1 84792 776 7}}, 368 pp; and ], ''Justice for Animals'', Simon & Schuster, 2023, {{ISBN|978 1 982102 50 0}}, 372 pp.), '']'', vol. 45, no.19 (5 October 2023), pp. 3, 5–8. The question of animal rights has been approached from a variety of theoretical orientations, including ] and ] ("CA") – none of them satisfactory to reviewer Lorna Finlayson, who teaches philosophy at England's ] and ends up (p. 8) suggesting "think politically about animals: "It ought to be – it is – possible to arrange society differently." (p. 8.) | |||
*] (2006). ''Animals in Islamic Tradition and Muslim Cultures''. ]. | |||
*Franklin, Julian H. (2005). ''Animal Rights and Moral Philosophy''. University of Columbia Press. | |||
*] (2003). , ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'', July 1, 2003. | |||
*] (2011). ''Ethics and Animals''. Cambridge University Press. | |||
*Hall, Lee (2006). ''Capers in the Churchyard: Animal Rights Advocacy in the Age of Terror''. Nectar Bat Press. | |||
*] and Clarke, Paul A. B.(eds.) (1990). ''Animal Rights: A Historic Anthology''. Columbia University Press. | |||
*] (2007). ''From Dusk 'til Dawn: An Insider's View of the Growth of the Animal Liberation Movement''. Puppy Pincher Press. | |||
*] and Wilson, Keith (eds). (2020). ''''. Lantern Publishing & Media. | |||
*] (2012). "The Universal Declaration of Animal Rights or the Creation of a New Equilibrium between Species". Animal Law Review volume 19–1. | |||
*] (2002). ''Animal Rights, Human Rights: Entanglements of Oppression and Liberation''. Rowman and Litterfield. | |||
*{{cite book | editor-last = Nibert | editor-first = David | date = 2017 | title = Animal Oppression and Capitalism | publisher = Praeger Publishing | isbn = 978-1440850738}} | |||
*Patterson, Charles (2002). ''Eternal Treblinka: Our Treatment of Animals and the Holocaust''. Lantern. | |||
*] (1990). ''Created from Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism''. Oxford University Press. | |||
*Regan, Tom and Singer, Peter (eds.) (1976). ''Animal Rights and Human Obligations''. Prentice-Hall. | |||
*Spiegel, Marjorie (1996). ''The Dreaded Comparison: Human and Animal Slavery''. Mirror Books. | |||
*] (2006). "Can the Treatment of Animals Be Compared to the Holocaust?" ''Ethics and the Environment'' 11 (Spring): 97–132. | |||
*] (2000). ''Life Force: The World of Jainism''. Asian Humanities Press. | |||
*Wilson, Scott (2010). "" ''Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy''. | |||
*Kymlicka, W., Donaldson, S. (2011) ''Zoopolis. A Political Theory of Animal Rights''. Oxford University Press. | |||
{{Refend}} | |||
{{Animal rights|state=expanded}} | |||
{{Vegetarianism}} | |||
* Animal rights news, commentary, podcasting, links. | |||
{{Authority control}} | |||
* Animal protection news and investigative reporting | |||
{{Law country lists}} | |||
* (Northern California and beyond) | |||
* | |||
* A Canada-based radio program featuring interviews with prominent organizations, authors, and activists from across the globe. | |||
* '''', animal rights magazine. | |||
* '''', a magazine of vegetarianism, animal rights and social justice | |||
* '''' | |||
* '''' | |||
] | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
===Animal rights online community=== | |||
* (message board and recipes) | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* - A busy, Canadian-based message board which is not actually about pornography at all but rather a creative way to get into Google search listings | |||
===Animal rights directories=== | |||
* | |||
* | |||
=== Animal rights critics === | |||
* | |||
* - a non-profit U.S. lobby group opposed to various animal rights groups. | |||
* | |||
* - a British internet magazine | |||
===Dealing with animal rights critics === | |||
* A website that aims to expose the owner of sites like “Peta kills animals”. | |||
===Humane-education organizations=== | |||
* Building Bridges Between Humans, Animals and Environment | |||
* | |||
* Exploring Peaceable Choices for the Planet and All those that Share | |||
* Inspiring Empathy for Humans, Animals, and the Planet | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* Interrelating people, nonhuman animals, and the earth through education | |||
* Formerly known as the Center for Compassionate Living | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
===Ethical concerns=== | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* @ the ] | |||
</div> | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] |
Latest revision as of 15:38, 26 September 2024
Rights belonging to animals This article is about the philosophy of animal rights. For current animal rights around the world, see Animal rights by country or territory. For a timeline of animal rights, see Timeline of animal welfare and rights. For other uses, see Animal rights (disambiguation).Part of a series on |
Animal rights |
---|
Overview |
Movement |
Animal abuse |
Ideas |
Related topics |
Rights |
---|
Theoretical distinctions |
Human rights |
Rights by beneficiary |
Other groups of rights |
|
Animal rights is the philosophy according to which many or all sentient animals have moral worth independent of their utility to humans, and that their most basic interests—such as avoiding suffering—should be afforded the same consideration as similar interests of human beings. Broadly speaking, and particularly in popular discourse, the term "animal rights" is often used synonymously with "animal protection" or "animal liberation". More narrowly, "animal rights" refers to the idea that many animals have fundamental rights to be treated with respect as individuals—rights to life, liberty, and freedom from torture that may not be overridden by considerations of aggregate welfare.
Many advocates of animal rights oppose the assignment of moral value and fundamental protections on the basis of species membership alone. They consider this idea, known as speciesism, a prejudice as irrational as any other. They maintain that animals should not be viewed as property or used as food, clothing, entertainment, or beasts of burden merely because they are not human. Multiple cultural traditions around the world such as Jainism, Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto and Animism also espouse forms of animal rights.
In parallel to the debate about moral rights, law schools in North America now often teach animal law, and several legal scholars, such as Steven M. Wise and Gary L. Francione, support the extension of basic legal rights and personhood to non-human animals. The animals most often considered in arguments for personhood are hominids. Some animal-rights academics support this because it would break the species barrier, but others oppose it because it predicates moral value on mental complexity rather than on sentience alone. As of November 2019, 29 countries had enacted bans on hominoid experimentation; Argentina has granted captive orangutans basic human rights since 2014. Outside of primates, animal-rights discussions most often address the status of mammals (compare charismatic megafauna). Other animals (considered less sentient) have gained less attention—insects relatively little (outside Jainism) and animal-like bacteria hardly any. The vast majority of animals have no legally recognised rights.
Critics of animal rights argue that nonhuman animals are unable to enter into a social contract, and thus cannot have rights, a view summarised by the philosopher Roger Scruton, who writes that only humans have duties, and therefore only humans have rights. Another argument, associated with the utilitarian tradition, maintains that animals may be used as resources so long as there is no unnecessary suffering; animals may have some moral standing, but any interests they have may be overridden in cases of comparatively greater gains to aggregate welfare made possible by their use, though what counts as "necessary" suffering or a legitimate sacrifice of interests can vary considerably. Certain forms of animal-rights activism, such as the destruction of fur farms and of animal laboratories by the Animal Liberation Front, have attracted criticism, including from within the animal-rights movement itself, and prompted the U.S. Congress to enact laws, including the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, allowing the prosecution of this sort of activity as terrorism.
History
Main article: History of animal rightsThe concept of moral rights for animals dates to Ancient India, with roots in early Jain and Hindu history, while Eastern, African, and Indigenous peoples also have rich traditions of animal protection. In the Western world, Aristotle viewed animals as lacking reason and existing for human use, though other ancient philosophers believed animals deserved gentle treatment. Major religious traditions, chiefly Indian or Dharmic religions, opposed animal cruelty. While scholars like Descartes saw animals as unconscious automata and Kant denied direct duties to animals, Jeremy Bentham emphasized their capacity to suffer. The publications of Charles Darwin eventually eroded the Cartesian view of animals. Darwin noted the mental and emotional continuity between humans and animals, suggesting the possibility of animal suffering. The anti-vivisection movement emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, driven significantly by women. From the 1970s onward, growing scholarly and activist interest in animal treatment has aimed to raise awareness and reform laws to improve animal rights and human–animal relationships.
In religion
See also: Animals in Islam; Christianity and animal rights; and Animal rights in Jainism, Hinduism, and BuddhismFor some the basis of animal rights is in religion or animal worship (or in general nature worship), with some religions banning killing any animal. In other religions animals are considered unclean. Hindu and Buddhist societies abandoned animal sacrifice and embraced vegetarianism from the 3rd century BCE. One of the most important sanctions of the Jain, Hindu, and Buddhist faiths is the concept of ahimsa, or refraining from the destruction of life. According to Buddhism, humans do not deserve preferential treatment over other living beings. The Dharmic interpretation of this doctrine prohibits the killing of any living being. These Indian religions' dharmic beliefs are reflected in the ancient Indian works of the Tolkāppiyam and Tirukkural, which contain passages that extend the idea of nonviolence to all living beings.
In Islam, animal rights were recognized early by the Sharia. This recognition is based on both the Qur'an and the Hadith. The Qur'an contains many references to animals, detailing that they have souls, form communities, communicate with God, and worship Him in their own way. Muhammad forbade his followers to harm any animal and asked them to respect animals' rights. Nevertheless, Islam does allow eating of certain species of animals.
According to Christianity, all animals, from the smallest to the largest, are cared for and loved. According to the Bible, "All these animals waited for the Lord, that the Lord might give them food at the hour. The Lord gives them, they receive; The Lord opens his hand, and they are filled with good things." It further says God "gave food to the animals, and made the crows cry."
Philosophical and legal approaches
Overview
Further information: Consequentialism and Deontological ethicsThe two main philosophical approaches to animal ethics are utilitarian and rights-based. The former is exemplified by Peter Singer, and the latter by Tom Regan and Gary Francione. Their differences reflect a distinction philosophers draw between ethical theories that judge the rightness of an act by its consequences (consequentialism/teleological ethics, or utilitarianism), and those that focus on the principle behind the act, almost regardless of consequences (deontological ethics). Deontologists argue that there are acts we should never perform, even if failing to do so entails a worse outcome.
There are a number of positions that can be defended from a consequentalist or deontologist perspective, including the capabilities approach, represented by Martha Nussbaum, and the egalitarian approach, which has been examined by Ingmar Persson and Peter Vallentyne. The capabilities approach focuses on what individuals require to fulfill their capabilities: Nussbaum (2006) argues that animals need a right to life, some control over their environment, company, play, and physical health.
Stephen R. L. Clark, Mary Midgley, and Bernard Rollin also discuss animal rights in terms of animals being permitted to lead a life appropriate for their kind. Egalitarianism favors an equal distribution of happiness among all individuals, which makes the interests of the worse off more important than those of the better off. Another approach, virtue ethics, holds that in considering how to act we should consider the character of the actor, and what kind of moral agents we should be. Rosalind Hursthouse has suggested an approach to animal rights based on virtue ethics. Mark Rowlands has proposed a contractarian approach.
Utilitarianism
Further information: Equal consideration of interests and UtilitarianismNussbaum (2004) writes that utilitarianism, starting with Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, has contributed more to the recognition of the moral status of animals than any other ethical theory. The utilitarian philosopher most associated with animal rights is Peter Singer, professor of bioethics at Princeton University. Singer is not a rights theorist, but uses the language of rights to discuss how we ought to treat individuals. He is a preference utilitarian, meaning that he judges the rightness of an act by the extent to which it satisfies the preferences (interests) of those affected.
His position is that there is no reason not to give equal consideration to the interests of human and nonhumans, though his principle of equality does not require identical treatment. A mouse and a man both have an interest in not being kicked, and there are no moral or logical grounds for failing to accord those interests equal weight. Interests are predicated on the ability to suffer, nothing more, and once it is established that a being has interests, those interests must be given equal consideration. Singer quotes the English philosopher Henry Sidgwick (1838–1900): "The good of any one individual is of no more importance, from the point of view ... of the Universe, than the good of any other."
Singer argues that equality of consideration is a prescription, not an assertion of fact: if the equality of the sexes were based only on the idea that men and women were equally intelligent, we would have to abandon the practice of equal consideration if this were later found to be false. But the moral idea of equality does not depend on matters of fact such as intelligence, physical strength, or moral capacity. Equality therefore cannot be grounded on the outcome of scientific investigations into the intelligence of nonhumans. All that matters is whether they can suffer.
Commentators on all sides of the debate now accept that animals suffer and feel pain, although it was not always so. Bernard Rollin, professor of philosophy, animal sciences, and biomedical sciences at Colorado State University, writes that Descartes's influence continued to be felt until the 1980s. Veterinarians trained in the US before 1989 were taught to ignore pain, he writes, and at least one major veterinary hospital in the 1960s did not stock narcotic analgesics for animal pain control. In his interactions with scientists, he was often asked to "prove" that animals are conscious, and to provide "scientifically acceptable" evidence that they could feel pain.
Scientific publications have made it clear since the 1980s that the majority of researchers do believe animals suffer and feel pain, though it continues to be argued that their suffering may be reduced by an inability to experience the same dread of anticipation as humans or to remember the suffering as vividly. The ability of animals to suffer, even it may vary in severity, is the basis for Singer's application of equal consideration. The problem of animal suffering, and animal consciousness in general, arose primarily because it was argued that animals have no language. Singer writes that, if language were needed to communicate pain, it would often be impossible to know when humans are in pain, though we can observe pain behavior and make a calculated guess based on it. He argues that there is no reason to suppose that the pain behavior of nonhumans would have a different meaning from the pain behavior of humans.
Subjects-of-a-life
Further information: The Case for Animal RightsTom Regan, professor emeritus of philosophy at North Carolina State University, argues in The Case for Animal Rights (1983) that nonhuman animals are what he calls "subjects-of-a-life", and as such are bearers of rights. He writes that, because the moral rights of humans are based on their possession of certain cognitive abilities, and because these abilities are also possessed by at least some nonhuman animals, such animals must have the same moral rights as humans. Although only humans act as moral agents, both marginal-case humans, such as infants, and at least some nonhumans must have the status of "moral patients".
Moral patients are unable to formulate moral principles, and as such are unable to do right or wrong, even though what they do may be beneficial or harmful. Only moral agents are able to engage in moral action. Animals for Regan have "intrinsic value" as subjects-of-a-life, and cannot be regarded as a means to an end, a view that places him firmly in the abolitionist camp. His theory does not extend to all animals, but only to those that can be regarded as subjects-of-a-life. He argues that all normal mammals of at least one year of age would qualify:
... individuals are subjects-of-a-life if they have beliefs and desires; perception, memory, and a sense of the future, including their own future; an emotional life together with feelings of pleasure and pain; preference- and welfare-interests; the ability to initiate action in pursuit of their desires and goals; a psychophysical identity over time; and an individual welfare in the sense that their experiential life fares well or ill for them, logically independently of their utility for others and logically independently of their being the object of anyone else's interests.
Whereas Singer is primarily concerned with improving the treatment of animals and accepts that, in some hypothetical scenarios, individual animals might be used legitimately to further human or nonhuman ends, Regan believes we ought to treat nonhuman animals as we would humans. He applies the strict Kantian ideal (which Kant himself applied only to humans) that they ought never to be sacrificed as a means to an end, and must be treated as ends in themselves.
Abolitionism
Further information: Abolitionism (animal rights) and Animals, Property, and the LawGary Francione, professor of law and philosophy at Rutgers Law School in Newark, is a leading abolitionist writer, arguing that animals need only one right, the right not to be owned. Everything else would follow from that paradigm shift. He writes that, although most people would condemn the mistreatment of animals, and in many countries there are laws that seem to reflect those concerns, "in practice the legal system allows any use of animals, however abhorrent." The law only requires that any suffering not be "unnecessary". In deciding what counts as "unnecessary", an animal's interests are weighed against the interests of human beings, and the latter almost always prevail.
Francione's Animals, Property, and the Law (1995) was the first extensive jurisprudential treatment of animal rights. In it, Francione compares the situation of animals to the treatment of slaves in the United States, where legislation existed that appeared to protect them while the courts ignored that the institution of slavery itself rendered the protection unenforceable. He offers as an example the United States Animal Welfare Act, which he describes as an example of symbolic legislation, intended to assuage public concern about the treatment of animals, but difficult to implement.
He argues that a focus on animal welfare, rather than animal rights, may worsen the position of animals by making the public feel comfortable about using them and entrenching the view of them as property. He calls animal rights groups who pursue animal welfare issues, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the "new welfarists", arguing that they have more in common with 19th-century animal protectionists than with the animal rights movement; indeed, the terms "animal protection" and "protectionism" are increasingly favored. His position in 1996 was that there is no animal rights movement in the United States.
Contractarianism
Further information: Social contractMark Rowlands, professor of philosophy at the University of Florida, has proposed a contractarian approach, based on the original position and the veil of ignorance—a "state of nature" thought experiment that tests intuitions about justice and fairness—in John Rawls's A Theory of Justice (1971). In the original position, individuals choose principles of justice (what kind of society to form, and how primary social goods will be distributed), unaware of their individual characteristics—their race, sex, class, or intelligence, whether they are able-bodied or disabled, rich or poor—and therefore unaware of which role they will assume in the society they are about to form.
The idea is that, operating behind the veil of ignorance, they will choose a social contract in which there is basic fairness and justice for them no matter the position they occupy. Rawls did not include species membership as one of the attributes hidden from the decision-makers in the original position. Rowlands proposes extending the veil of ignorance to include rationality, which he argues is an undeserved property similar to characteristics including race, sex and intelligence.
Prima facie rights theory
Further information: Prima facie rightAmerican philosopher Timothy Garry has proposed an approach that deems nonhuman animals worthy of prima facie rights. In a philosophical context, a prima facie (Latin for "on the face of it" or "at first glance") right is one that appears to be applicable at first glance, but upon closer examination may be outweighed by other considerations. In his book Ethics: A Pluralistic Approach to Moral Theory, Lawrence Hinman characterizes such rights as "the right is real but leaves open the question of whether it is applicable and overriding in a particular situation". The idea that nonhuman animals are worthy of prima facie rights is to say that, in a sense, animals have rights that can be overridden by many other considerations, especially those conflicting a human's right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Garry supports his view arguing:
... if a nonhuman animal were to kill a human being in the U.S., it would have broken the laws of the land and would probably get rougher sanctions than if it were a human. My point is that like laws govern all who interact within a society, rights are to be applied to all beings who interact within that society. This is not to say these rights endowed by humans are equivalent to those held by nonhuman animals, but rather that if humans possess rights then so must all those who interact with humans.
In sum, Garry suggests that humans have obligations to nonhuman animals; animals do not, and ought not to, have uninfringible rights against humans.
Feminism and animal rights
Further information: Women and animal advocacy, Ethics of care, and Feminist ethicsWomen have played a central role in animal advocacy since the 19th century. The anti-vivisection movement in the 19th and early 20th century in England and the United States was largely run by women, including Frances Power Cobbe, Anna Kingsford, Lizzy Lind af Hageby and Caroline Earle White (1833–1916). Garner writes that 70 per cent of the membership of the Victoria Street Society (one of the anti-vivisection groups founded by Cobbe) were women, as were 70 per cent of the membership of the British RSPCA in 1900.
The modern animal advocacy movement has a similar representation of women. They are not invariably in leadership positions: during the March for Animals in Washington, D.C., in 1990—the largest animal rights demonstration held until then in the United States—most of the participants were women, but most of the platform speakers were men. Nevertheless, several influential animal advocacy groups have been founded by women, including the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection by Cobbe in London in 1898; the Animal Welfare Board of India by Rukmini Devi Arundale in 1962; and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, co-founded by Ingrid Newkirk in 1980. In the Netherlands, Marianne Thieme and Esther Ouwehand were elected to parliament in 2006 representing the Parliamentary group for Animals.
The preponderance of women in the movement has led to a body of academic literature exploring feminism and animal rights, such as feminism and vegetarianism or veganism, the oppression of women and animals, and the male association of women and animals with nature and emotion, rather than reason—an association that several feminist writers have embraced. Lori Gruen writes that women and animals serve the same symbolic function in a patriarchal society: both are "the used"; the dominated, submissive "Other". When the British feminist Mary Wollstonecraft (1759–1797) published A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792), Thomas Taylor (1758–1835), a Cambridge philosopher, responded with an anonymous parody, A Vindication of the Rights of Brutes (1792), saying that Wollstonecraft's arguments for women's rights could be applied equally to animals, a position he intended as reductio ad absurdum. In her works The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory (1990) and The Pornography of Meat (2004), Carol J. Adams focuses in particular on what she argues are the links between the oppression of women and that of non-human animals.
Transhumanism
Some transhumanists argue for animal rights, liberation, and "uplift" of animal consciousness into machines. Transhumanism also understands animal rights on a gradation or spectrum with other types of sentient rights, including human rights and the rights of conscious artificial intelligences (posthuman rights).
Socialism and anti-capitalism
According to sociologist David Nibert of Wittenberg University, the struggle for animal liberation must happen in tandem with a more generalized struggle against human oppression and exploitation under global capitalism. He says that under a more egalitarian democratic socialist system, one that would "allow a more just and peaceful order to emerge" and be "characterized by economic democracy and a democratically controlled state and mass media", there would be "much greater potential to inform the public about vital global issues—and the potential for "campaigns to improve the lives of other animals" to be "more abolitionist in nature." Philosopher Steven Best of the University of Texas at El Paso states that the animal liberation movement, as characterized by the Animal Liberation Front and its various offshoots, "is a significant threat to global capital."
... Animal liberation challenges large sectors of the capitalist economy by assailing corporate agriculture and pharmaceutical companies and their suppliers. Far from being irrelevant to social movements, animal rights can form the basis for a broad coalition of progressive social groups and drive changes that strike at the heart of capitalist exploitation of animals, people and the earth.
Critics
R. G. Frey
R. G. Frey, professor of philosophy at Bowling Green State University, is a preference utilitarian. In his early work, Interests and Rights (1980), Frey disagreed with Singer—who wrote in Animal Liberation (1975) that the interests of nonhuman animals must be given equal consideration when judging the consequences of an act—on the grounds that animals have no interests. Frey argues that interests are dependent on desire, and that no desire can exist without a corresponding belief. Animals have no beliefs, because a belief state requires the ability to hold a second-order belief—a belief about the belief—which he argues requires language: "If someone were to say, e.g. 'The cat believes that the door is locked,' then that person is holding, as I see it, that the cat holds the declarative sentence 'The door is locked' to be true; and I can see no reason whatever for crediting the cat or any other creature which lacks language, including human infants, with entertaining declarative sentences."
Carl Cohen
Carl Cohen, professor of philosophy at the University of Michigan, argues that rights holders must be able to distinguish between their own interests and what is right. "The holders of rights must have the capacity to comprehend rules of duty governing all, including themselves. In applying such rules, ... must recognize possible conflicts between what is in their own interest and what is just. Only in a community of beings capable of self-restricting moral judgments can the concept of a right be correctly invoked." Cohen rejects Singer's argument that, since a brain-damaged human could not make moral judgments, moral judgments cannot be used as the distinguishing characteristic for determining who is awarded rights. Cohen writes that the test for moral judgment "is not a test to be administered to humans one by one", but should be applied to the capacity of members of the species in general.
Richard Posner
Judge Richard Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit debated the issue of animal rights in 2001 with Peter Singer. Posner posits that his moral intuition tells him "that human beings prefer their own. If a dog threatens a human infant, even if it requires causing more pain to the dog to stop it, than the dog would have caused to the infant, then we favour the child. It would be monstrous to spare the dog."
Singer challenges this by arguing that formerly unequal rights for gays, women, and certain races were justified using the same set of intuitions. Posner replies that equality in civil rights did not occur because of ethical arguments, but because facts mounted that there were no morally significant differences between humans based on race, sex, or sexual orientation that would support inequality. If and when similar facts emerge about humans and animals, the differences in rights will erode too. But facts will drive equality, not ethical arguments that run contrary to instinct, he argues. Posner calls his approach "soft utilitarianism", in contrast to Singer's "hard utilitarianism". He argues:
The "soft" utilitarian position on animal rights is a moral intuition of many, probably most, Americans. We realize that animals feel pain, and we think that to inflict pain without a reason is bad. Nothing of practical value is added by dressing up this intuition in the language of philosophy; much is lost when the intuition is made a stage in a logical argument. When kindness toward animals is levered into a duty of weighting the pains of animals and of people equally, bizarre vistas of social engineering are opened up.
Roger Scruton
Roger Scruton, the British philosopher, argued that rights imply obligations. Every legal privilege, he wrote, imposes a burden on the one who does not possess that privilege: that is, "your right may be my duty." Scruton therefore regarded the emergence of the animal rights movement as "the strangest cultural shift within the liberal worldview", because the idea of rights and responsibilities is, he argued, distinctive to the human condition, and it makes no sense to spread them beyond our own species.
He accused animal rights advocates of "pre-scientific" anthropomorphism, attributing traits to animals that are, he says, Beatrix Potter-like, where "only man is vile." It is within this fiction that the appeal of animal rights lies, he argued. The world of animals is non-judgmental, filled with dogs who return our affection almost no matter what we do to them, and cats who pretend to be affectionate when, in fact, they care only about themselves. It is, he argued, a fantasy, a world of escape.
Scruton singled out Peter Singer, a prominent Australian philosopher and animal-rights activist, for criticism. He wrote that Singer's works, including Animal Liberation, "contain little or no philosophical argument. They derive their radical moral conclusions from a vacuous utilitarianism that counts the pain and pleasure of all living things as equally significant and that ignores just about everything that has been said in our philosophical tradition about the real distinction between persons and animals."
Tom Regan countered this view of rights by distinguishing moral agents and moral patients.
Public attitudes
According to a paper published in 2000 by Harold Herzog and Lorna Dorr, previous academic surveys of attitudes towards animal rights have tended to suffer from small sample sizes and non-representative groups. However, a number of factors appear to correlate with the attitude of individuals regarding the treatment of animals and animal rights. These include gender, age, occupation, religion, and level of education. There has also been evidence to suggest that prior experience with pets may be a factor in people's attitudes.
According to some studies, women are more likely to empathize with the cause of animal rights than men. A 1996 study suggested that factors that may partially explain this discrepancy include attitudes towards feminism and science, scientific literacy, and the presence of a greater emphasis on "nurturance or compassion" among women.
A common misconception on the concept of animal rights is that its proponents want to grant non-human animals the exact same legal rights as humans, such as the right to vote. This is not the case, as the concept is that animals should have rights with equal consideration to their interests (for example, cats do not have any interest in voting, so they should not have the right to vote). A 2016 study found that support for animal testing may not be based on cogent philosophical rationales, and more open debate is warranted.
A 2007 survey to examine whether or not people who believed in evolution were more likely to support animal rights than creationists and believers in intelligent design found that this was largely the case—according to the researchers, the respondents who were strong Christian fundamentalists and believers in creationism were less likely to advocate for animal rights than those who were less fundamentalist in their beliefs. The findings extended previous research, such as a 1992 study which found that 48% of animal rights activists were atheists or agnostic. A 2019 study in The Washington Post found that those who have positive attitudes toward animal rights also tend to have a positive view of universal healthcare, favor reducing discrimination against African Americans, the LGBT community and undocumented immigrants, and expanding welfare to aid the poor.
Two surveys found that attitudes towards animal rights tactics, such as direct action, are very diverse within the animal rights communities. Near half (50% and 39% in two surveys) of activists do not support direct action. One survey concluded "it would be a mistake to portray animal rights activists as homogeneous."
Even though around 90% of US adults regularly consume meat, almost half of them appear to support a ban on slaughterhouses: in Sentience Institute's 2017 survey of 1,094 U.S. adults' attitudes toward animal farming, 49% "support a ban on factory farming, 47% support a ban on slaughterhouses, and 33% support a ban on animal farming". The 2017 survey was replicated by researchers at the Oklahoma State University, who found similar results: 73% of respondents answered "yes" to the question "Were you aware that slaughterhouses are where livestock are killed and processed into meat, such that, without them, you would not be able to consume meat?"
In the U.S., many public protest slaughters were held in the late 1960s and early 1970s by the National Farmers Organization. Protesting low prices for meat, farmers killed their animals in front of media representatives. The carcasses were wasted and not eaten. This effort backfired because it angered television audiences to see animals needlessly and wastefully killed.
See also
- Animals portal
- Animal cognition
- Animal consciousness
- Animal–industrial complex
- Animal liberation
- Animal liberation movement
- Animal liberationist
- Animal rights by country or territory
- Animal studies
- Animal suffering
- Animal trial
- Animal Welfare Institute
- Antinaturalism (politics)
- Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness
- Chick culling
- Cruelty to animals
- Critical animal studies
- Deep ecology
- Do Animals Have Rights? (book)
- List of animal rights advocates
- List of songs about animal rights
- Moral circle expansion
- Non-human electoral candidate
- Open rescue
- Plant rights
- Sentientism
- Timeline of animal welfare and rights
- Wild animal suffering
- World Animal Day
References
- Kumar, Satish (September 2002). You are, therefore I am: A declaration of dependence. Bloomsbury USA. ISBN 9781903998182.
- DeGrazia (2002), ch. 2; Taylor (2009), ch. 1.
- Taylor (2009), ch. 3.
- Compare for example similar usage of the term in 1938: The American Biology Teacher. Vol. 53. National Association of Biology Teachers. 1938. p. 211. Retrieved 16 April 2021.
The foundation from which these behaviors spring is the ideology known as speciesism. Speciesism is deeply rooted in the widely-held belief that the human species is entitled to certain rights and privileges.
- Horta (2010).
- That a central goal of animal rights is to eliminate the property status of animals, see Sunstein (2004), p. 11ff.
- For speciesism and fundamental protections, see Waldau (2011).
- For food, clothing, research subjects or entertainment, see Francione (1995), p. 17.
- "Animal Law Courses". Animal Legal Defense Fund. Archived from the original on 2020-12-04. Retrieved 2020-12-13.
- For animal-law courses in North America, see "Animal law courses" Archived 2010-06-13 at the Wayback Machine, Animal Legal Defense Fund. Retrieved July 12, 2012.
- For a discussion of animals and personhood, see Wise (2000), pp. 4, 59, 248ff; Wise (2004); Posner (2004); Wise (2007) Archived 2008-06-14 at the Wayback Machine.
- For the arguments and counter-arguments about awarding personhood only to great apes, see Garner (2005), p. 22.
- Also see Sunstein, Cass R. (February 20, 2000). "The Chimps' Day in Court" Archived 2017-05-01 at the Wayback Machine, The New York Times.
- Giménez, Emiliano (January 4, 2015). "Argentine orangutan granted unprecedented legal rights". edition.cnn.com. CNN Espanol. Archived from the original on April 3, 2021. Retrieved April 21, 2015.
-
Cohen, Carl; Regan, Tom (2001). The Animal Rights Debate. Point/Counterpoint: Philosophers Debate Contemporary Issues Series. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. p. 47. ISBN 9780847696628. Retrieved 16 April 2021.
Too often overlooked in the animal world, according to Sapontzis, are insects that have interests, and therefore rights.
-
The concept of "bacteria rights" can appear coupled with disdain or irony:
Pluhar, Evelyn B. (1995). "Human "superiority" and the argument from marginal cases". Beyond Prejudice: The Moral Significance of Human and Nonhuman Animals. Book collections on Project MUSE. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press. p. 9. ISBN 9780822316480. Retrieved 16 April 2021.
For example, in an editorial entitled 'Animal Rights Nonsense,' ... in the prestigious science journal Nature, defenders of animal rights are accused of being committed to the absurdity of 'bacteria rights.'
- Jakopovich, Daniel (2021). "The UK's Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill Excludes the Vast Majority of Animals: Why We Must Expand Our Moral Circle to Include Invertebrates". Animals & Society Research Initiative, University of Victoria, Canada. Archived from the original on 2022-11-29. Retrieved 2022-06-18.
- ^ Scruton, Roger (Summer 2000). "Animal Rights". City Journal. New York: Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. Archived from the original on 2016-03-03. Retrieved 2005-12-04.
- Liguori, G.; et al. (2017). "Ethical Issues in the Use of Animal Models for Tissue Engineering: Reflections on Legal Aspects, Moral Theory, 3Rs Strategies, and Harm-Benefit Analysis" (PDF). Tissue Engineering Part C: Methods. 23 (12): 850–862. doi:10.1089/ten.TEC.2017.0189. PMID 28756735. S2CID 206268293. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2020-09-15. Retrieved 2019-07-12.
- Garner (2005), pp. 11, 16.
- Also see Frey (1980); and for a review of Frey, see Sprigge (1981) Archived 2016-02-19 at the Wayback Machine.
- Singer (2000), pp. 151–156.
- Martin, Gus (15 June 2011). The SAGE Encyclopedia of Terrorism, Second Edition. SAGE. ISBN 9781412980166 – via Google Books.
- Tähtinen, Unto (1976). Ahimsa. Non-Violence in Indian Tradition. London. pp. 2–3 (English translation: Schmidt p. 631). ISBN 0-09-123340-2.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) - ^ Grant, Catharine (2006). The No-nonsense Guide to Animal Rights. New Internationalist. p. 24. ISBN 9781904456407.
These religions emphasize ahimsa, which is the principle of non-violence towards all living things. The first precept is a prohibition against the killing of any creature. The Jain, Hindu and Buddhist injunctions against killing serve to teach that all creatures are spiritually equal.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) - "Animal rights". BBC. Archived from the original on 8 March 2021. Retrieved 17 March 2019.
The main reason for Hindu respect for animal rights is the principle of ahimsa. According to the principle of ahimsa, no living thing should be harmed. This applies to humans and animals. The Jains' belief system takes the principle of ahimsa regarding animals so seriously that as well as being strict vegetarians, some followers wear masks to prevent them breathing in insects. They may also sweep paths with a small broom to make sure they do not tread on any living creatures.
- Owen, Marna A. (2009). Animal Rights: Noble Cause Or Needless Effort?. Twenty-First Century Books. p. 12. ISBN 9780761340829.
- "Animal Rights." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007.
- Waddicor, M. H., Montesquieu and the Philosophy of Natural Law (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1970), p. 63 Archived 16 August 2021 at the Wayback Machine.
- "Animal Consciousness, No. 2. Historical background". Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. 23 December 1995. Archived from the original on 6 September 2008. Retrieved 16 December 2014.
- Parker, J. V., Animal Minds, Animal Souls, Animal Rights (Lanham: University Press of America, 2010), p. 16 Archived 16 August 2021 at the Wayback Machine, 88 Archived 16 August 2021 at the Wayback Machine, 99 Archived 16 August 2021 at the Wayback Machine.
- Kant, Immanuel (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals
- Bentham, Jeremy. 1780. "Of the Limits of the Penal Branch of Jurisprudence". pp. 307–335 in An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. London: T. Payne and Sons.
- Spencer, J., "'Love and Hatred are Common to the Whole Sensitive Creation': Animal Feeling in the Century before Darwin," in A. Richardson, ed., After Darwin: Animals, Emotions, and the Mind (Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi, 2013), p. 37 Archived 16 August 2021 at the Wayback Machine.
- Workman, L. (2013). Charles Darwin: The Shaping of Evolutionary Thinking. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 177. ISBN 978-1-137-31323-2. Archived from the original on 16 August 2021. Retrieved 19 August 2019.
- Franco, Nuno Henrique (2013-03-19). "Animal Experiments in Biomedical Research: A Historical Perspective". Animals. 3 (1): 238–273. doi:10.3390/ani3010238. ISSN 2076-2615. PMC 4495509. PMID 26487317.
- Ross, Karen (2014). "Winning Women's Votes: Defending Animal Experimentation and Women's Clubs in New York, 1920–1930". New York History. 95 (1): 26–40. doi:10.1353/nyh.2014.0050.
- Garner (2005), pp. 21–22.
- Meenakshi Sundaram, T. P. (1957). "Vegetarianism in Tamil Literature". 15th World Vegetarian Congress 1957. International Vegetarian Union (IVU). Archived from the original on 22 January 2022. Retrieved 17 April 2022.
Ahimsa is the ruling principle of Indian life from the very earliest times. ... This positive spiritual attitude is easily explained to the common man in a negative way as "ahimsa" and hence this way of denoting it. Tiruvalluvar speaks of this as "kollaamai" or "non-killing."
- "BBC - Religions - Islam: Animals". bbc.co.uk. Archived from the original on 2020-02-04. Retrieved 2019-12-20.
- Proverbs 30:24 and NW; Psalm 104:24, 25, 27, 28
- Ps 147:9
- Craig (1988).
- Nussbaum (2006), pp. 388ff, 393ff; also see Nussbaum (2004), p. 299ff.
- Weir (2009): see Clark (1977); Rollin (1981); Midgley (1984).
- Vallentyne (2005) Archived 2016-04-13 at the Wayback Machine; Vallentyne (2007).
- Rowlands (2009), p. 98ff; Hursthouse (2000a); Hursthouse (2000b), p. 146ff.
- ^ Rowlands (1998), p. 118ff, particularly pp. 147–152.
- Nussbaum (2004), p. 302.
- For a discussion of preference utilitarianism, see Singer (2011), pp. 14ff, 94ff.
- Singer (1990), pp. 7–8.
- Singer 1990, p. 5.
- Singer (1990), p. 4.
- Rollin (1989), pp. xii, pp. 117–118; Rollin (2007) Archived 2020-07-28 at the Wayback Machine.
- Singer (1990), pp. 10–17, citing Stamp Dawkins (1980), Walker (1983), and Griffin (1984); Garner (2005), pp. 13–14.
- Singer (1990) p. 12ff.
- ^ Regan (1983), p. 243.
- Regan (1983).
- Francione (1990), pp. 4, 17ff.
- Francione (1995), pp. 4–5.
- Francione (1995), p. 208ff.
- Francione (1996), p. 32ff
- Francione and Garner (2010), pp. 1ff, 175ff.
- Hall, Lee. "An Interview with Professor Gary L. Francione" Archived May 8, 2009, at the Wayback Machine, Friends of Animals. Retrieved February 3, 2011.
- Hinman, Lawrence M. Ethics: A Pluralistic Approach to Moral Theory. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College, 1998. Print.
- Garry, Timothy J. Nonhuman Animals: Possessors of Prima Facie Rights (2012), p.6
- ^ Lansbury (1985); Adams (1990); Donovan (1993); Gruen (1993); Adams (1994); Adams and Donovan (1995); Adams (2004); MacKinnon (2004).
- Kean (1995) Archived 2020-04-13 at the Wayback Machine.
- Garner (2005), p. 141, citing Elston (1990), p. 276.
- Garner (2005), pp. 142–143.
- Gruen (1993), p. 60ff.
- Singer (1990), p. 1.
- Green, Elizabeth W. (10 October 2003). "Fifteen Questions For Carol J. Adams". The Harvard Crimson. Retrieved 22 November 2008.
- George Dvorsky. "The Ethics of Animal Enhancement". Archived from the original on 2017-04-25. Retrieved 2017-04-24.
- Evans, Woody (2015). "Posthuman Rights: Dimensions of Transhuman Worlds". Teknokultura. 12 (2). doi:10.5209/rev_TK.2015.v12.n2.49072.
- Nibert 2013, p. 270.
- Best 2014, p. 103.
- Frey (1989), p. 40.
- pg. 94-100 Archived 2011-11-27 at the Wayback Machine. Cohen and Regan (2001).
- ^ Posner (June 15, 2001) Archived August 21, 2011, at the Wayback Machine; Posner-Singer debate in full Archived 2015-05-09 at the Wayback Machine, courtesy link on utilitarian.net.
- Also see Posner (2004).
- Singer (June 15, 2001) Archived September 14, 2017, at the Wayback Machine.
- "Tom Regan: The Case For Animal Rights". The Vegetarian Site. Archived from the original on November 2, 2019. Retrieved November 2, 2019.
- Herzog, Harold; Dorr, Lorna (2000). "Electronically Available Surveys of Attitudes Toward Animals". Society & Animals. 10 (2).
- ^ Apostol, L.; Rebega, O.L.; Miclea, M. (2013). "Psychological and Socio-Demographic Predictors of Attitudes towards Animals". Social and Behavioural Sciences (78): 521–525.
- Herzog, Harold (2007). "Gender Differences in Human-Animal Interactions: A Review". Anthrozoös. 20 (1): 7–21. doi:10.2752/089279307780216687. S2CID 14988443.
- Pifer, Linda (1996). "Exploring the Gender Gap in Young Adults' Attitudes about Animal Research" (PDF). Society and Animals. 4 (1): 37–52. doi:10.1163/156853096X00034. PMID 11654528. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2021-09-17. Retrieved 2021-06-04.
- "Ethics - Animal ethics: Animal rights". BBC Online. Archived from the original on March 24, 2022. Retrieved February 10, 2022.
- Joffe, Ari R.; Bara, Meredith; Anton, Natalie; Nobis, Nathan (March 29, 2016). "The ethics of animal research: a survey of the public and scientists in North America". BMC Medical Ethics. 17: 17. doi:10.1186/s12910-016-0100-x. ISSN 1472-6939. PMC 4812627. PMID 27025215.
- DeLeeuwa, Jamie; Galen, Luke; Aebersold, Cassandra; Stanton, Victoria (2007). "Support for Animal Rights as a Function of Belief in Evolution, Religious Fundamentalism, and Religious Denomination" (PDF). Society and Animals (15): 353–363. Archived from the original (PDF) on June 20, 2013.
- Galvin, Shelley L.; Herzog, Harold A. Jr. (1992). "Ethical Ideology, Animal Rights Activism, And Attitudes Toward The Treatment Of Animals". Ethics & Behavior. 2 (3): 141–149. doi:10.1207/s15327019eb0203_1. PMID 11651362. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-08-29.
- Park, Yon Soo; Valentino, Benjamin (July 26, 2019). "Who supports animal rights? Here's what we found". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on July 26, 2019. Retrieved July 26, 2019.
- Plous, S. (1991). "An attitude survey of animal rights activists". Psychological Science. 2 (3): 194–196. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1991.tb00131.x. S2CID 145549994.
- Berg, Jennifer; Jackson, Chris (May 12, 2021). "Nearly nine in ten Americans consume meat as part of their diet". Ipsos. Archived from the original on July 20, 2021. Retrieved February 13, 2022.
- Ettinger, Jill (November 21, 2017). "70% of Americans Want Better Treatment for Farm Animals, Poll Finds". Organic Authority. Archived from the original on 29 September 2018. Retrieved 13 February 2022.
- Piper, Kelsey (November 5, 2018). "California and Florida voters could change the lives of millions of animals on Election Day". Vox. Archived from the original on 13 February 2022. Retrieved 13 February 2022.
- Reese Anthis, Jacy (November 20, 2017). "Animals, Food, and Technology (AFT) Survey 2017". Sentience Institute. Surveys. Archived from the original on January 4, 2022. Retrieved February 13, 2022.
- Siegner, Cathy (January 25, 2018). "Survey: Most consumers like meat, slaughterhouses not so much". Food Dive. Archived from the original on November 2, 2021. Retrieved February 13, 2022.
- Norwood, Bailey; Murray, Susan. "FooDS Food Deman Survey, Volume 5, Issue 9: January 18, 2018" (PDF). Oklahoma State University. Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 August 2019. Retrieved February 13, 2022.
- Stockwell, Ryan J. Growing a new agrarian myth: the american agriculture movement, identity, and the call to save the family farm (Thesis). p. 19. Archived from the original on 15 April 2023. Retrieved 11 May 2020.
Bibliography
Books and papers are cited in short form in the footnotes, with full citations here. News and other sources are cited in full in the footnotes.
- Adams, Carol J. (1996). The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory. Continuum. ISBN 1501312839
- Adams, Carol J.; Donovan, Josephine, eds. (1995). Animals and Women: Feminist Theoretical Explorations. Duke University Press. ISBN 0822316552
- Adams, Carol J. (2004). The Pornography of Meat. Continuum. ISBN 9781590565100
- Benthall, Jonathan (2007). "Animal liberation and rights", Anthropology Today, volume 23, issue 2, April.
- Bentham, Jeremy (1781). Principles of Penal Law. ISBN 1379912326
- Beauchamp, Tom (2009). "The Moral Standing of Animals", in Marc Bekoff. Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare. Greenwood. ISBN 0313352593
- Beauchamp, Tom (2011a). "Introduction," in Tom Beauchamp and R.G. Frey (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics. Oxford University Press. ISBN 019935197X
- Beauchamp, Tom (2011b). "Rights Theory and Animal Rights," in Beauchamp and Frey, op cit. ISBN 019935197X
- Best, Steven (2014). The Politics of Total Liberation: Revolution for the 21st Century. Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9781137440723. ISBN 978-1137471116.
- Clark, Stephen R. L. (1977). The Moral Status of Animals. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0192830406
- Cohen, Carl (1986). "The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research" Archived 2011-11-27 at the Wayback Machine, New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 315, issue 14, October, pp. 865–870.
- Cohen, Carl and Regan, Tom (2001). The Animal Rights Debate. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 0847696626
- Craig, Edward (ed.) (1988). "Deontological Ethics" and "Consequentalism." Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- DeGrazia, David (2002). Animal Rights: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
- Donovan, Josephine (1993). "Animal Rights and Feminist Theory," in Greta Gaard. Ecofeminism: Women, Animals, Nature. Temple University Press.
- Francione, Gary (1996). Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement. Temple University Press.
- Francione, Gary (1995). Animals, Property, and the Law. Temple University Press.
- Francione, Gary (2008). Animals as Persons. Columbia University Press.
- Francione, Gary and Garner, Robert (2010). The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition Or Regulation? Columbia University Press.
- Fellenz, Mark R. (2007). The Moral Menagerie: Philosophy and Animal Rights. University of Illinois Press.
- Frey, R.G. (1980). Interests and Rights: The Case against Animals. Clarendon Press.
- Frey, R.G. (1989). "Why Animals Lack Beliefs and Desires," in Peter Singer and Tom Regan (eds.). Animal Rights and Human Obligations. Prentice Hall.
- Garner, Robert (2004). Animals, Politics and Morality. Manchester University Press.
- Garner, Robert (2005). The Political Theory of Animals Rights. Manchester University Press.
- Giannelli, Michael A. (1985). "Three Blind Mice, See How They Run: A Critique of Behavioral Research With Animals". In M.W. Fox & L.D. Mickley (eds.), Advances in Animal Welfare Science 1985/1986 (pp. 109–164). Washington, DC: The Humane Society of the United States
- Gruen, Lori (1993). "Dismantling Oppression: An Analysis of the Connection Between Women and Animals", in Greta Gaard. Ecofeminism: Women, Animals, Nature. Temple University Press.
- Griffin, Donald (1984). Animal Thinking. Harvard University Press.
- Horta, Oscar (2010). "What Is Speciesism?", The Journal of Environmental and Agricultural Ethics, Vol. 23, No. 3, June, pp. 243–266.
- Hursthouse, Rosalind (2000a). On Virtue Ethics. Oxford University Press.
- Hursthouse, Rosalind (2000b). Ethics, Humans and Other Animals. Routledge.
- Jakopovich, Daniel (2021). "The UK's Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill Excludes the Vast Majority of Animals: Why We Must Expand Our Moral Circle to Include Invertebrates" Archived 2022-11-29 at the Wayback Machine, Animals & Society Research Initiative, University of Victoria, Canada.
- Kant, Immanuel (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals.
- Kean, Hilda (1995). "The 'Smooth Cool Men of Science': The Feminist and Socialist Response to Vivisection" Archived 2020-04-13 at the Wayback Machine, History Workshop Journal, No. 40 (Autumn), pp. 16–38.
- Kelch, Thomas G. (2011). Globalization and Animal Law. Kluwer Law International.
- Lansbury, Coral (1985). The Old Brown Dog: Women, Workers, and Vivisection in Edwardian England. University of Wisconsin Press.
- Legge, Debbi and Brooman, Simon (1997). Law Relating to Animals. Cavendish Publishing. ISBN 1859412386
- Leneman, Leah (1999). "No Animal Food: The Road to Veganism in Britain, 1909–1944," Society and Animals, 7, 1–5.
- Locke, John (1693). Some Thoughts Concerning Education.
- MacKinnon, Catharine A. (2004). "Of Mice and Men," in Nussbaum and Sunstein, op cit.
- Mason, Peter (1997). The Brown Dog Affair. Two Sevens Publishing.
- Midgley, Mary (1984). Animals and Why They Matter. University of Georgia Press. ISBN 0820320412
- Molland, Neil (2004). "Thirty Years of Direct Action" in Best and Nocella, op cit.
- Monaghan, Rachael (2000). "Terrorism in the Name of Animal Rights," in Taylor, Maxwell and Horgan, John. The Future of Terrorism. Routledge.
- Murray, L. (2006). "The ASPCA–Pioneers in Animal Welfare" Archived 2011-07-26 at the Wayback Machine, Encyclopædia Britannica's Advocacy for Animals.
- Nash, Roderick (1989). The Rights of Nature: A History of Environmental Ethics. University of Wisconsin Press.
- Newkirk, Ingrid (2004). "The ALF: Who, Why, and What?", in Steven Best and Anthony Nocella. (eds).Terrorists or Freedom Fighters? Reflections on the Liberation of Animals. Lantern 2004.
- Nibert, David (2013). Animal Oppression and Human Violence: Domesecration, Capitalism, and Global Conflict. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0231151894. Archived from the original on 2022-11-04. Retrieved 2022-09-14.
- Nussbaum, Martha (2004). "Beyond Compassion and Humanity: Justice for Nonhuman Animals", in Cass Sunstein and Martha Nussbaum (eds.). Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions. Oxford University Press.
- Nussbaum, Martha (2006). Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership. Belknap Press.
- Posner, Richard and Singer, Peter (June 15, 2001). Posner-Singer debate Archived 2017-09-14 at the Wayback Machine, Slate.
- Posner, Richard and Singer, Peter (2004). "Animal rights" in Sunstein and Nussbaum, op cit.
- Rachels, James (2009). "Darwin, Charles," in Bekoff, op cit.
- Redclift, Michael R. (2010). The International Handbook of Environmental Sociology. Edward Elgar Publishing.
- Regan, Tom (1983). The Case for Animal Rights. University of California Press.
- Regan, Tom (2001). Defending Animal Rights. University of Illinois Press.
- Rollin, Bernard (1981). Animal Rights and Human Morality. Prometheus Books.
- Rollin, Bernard (1989). The Unheeded Cry: Animal Consciousness, Animal Pain, and Science. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Rollin, Bernard (2007). "Animal research: a moral science" Archived 2020-07-28 at the Wayback Machine, Nature, EMBO Reports 8, 6, pp. 521–525.
- Rowlands, Mark (2009) . Animal Rights. A Defense. Palgrave Macmillan.
- Ryder, Richard (2000) . Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes Towards Speciesism. Berg.
- Sapontzis, Steve (1985). "Moral Community and Animal Rights" Archived 2016-04-13 at the Wayback Machine, American Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 3 (July), pp. 251–257.
- Scruton, Roger (1998). Animal Rights and Wrongs. Claridge Press.
- Scruton, Roger (2000). "Animal Rights" Archived 2016-03-03 at the Wayback Machine, City Journal, summer.
- Singer, Peter (April 5, 1973). "Animal liberation" Archived 2010-02-24 at the Wayback Machine, The New York Review of Books, Volume 20, Number 5.
- Singer, Peter (1990) . Animal Liberation. New York Review Books.
- Singer, Peter (2000) . Ethics into Action: Henry Spira and the Animal Rights Movement. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
- Singer, Peter (2003). "Animal liberation at 30" Archived 2010-03-30 at the Wayback Machine, The New York Review of Books, vol 50, no. 8, May 15.
- Singer, Peter (2004). "Ethics Beyond Species and Beyond Instincts," in Sunstein and Nussbaum, op cit.
- Singer, Peter (2011) . Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
- Sprigge, T.L.S. (1981) "Interests and Rights: The Case against Animals" Archived 2016-02-19 at the Wayback Machine, Journal of Medical Ethics. June, 7(2): 95–102.
- Stamp Dawkins, Marian (1980). Animal Suffering: The Science of Animal Welfare. Chapman and Hall.
- Stucki, Saskia (2020) "Towards a Theory of Legal Animal Rights: Simple and Fundamental Rights" Archived 2021-01-09 at the Wayback Machine, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 40:533-560.
- Sunstein, Cass R. (2004). "Introduction: What are Animal Rights?" in Sunstein and Nussbaum, op cit.
- Sunstein, Cass R. and Nussbaum, Martha (2005). Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195305108
- Taylor, Angus (2009). Animals and Ethics: An Overview of the Philosophical Debate. Broadview Press.
- Taylor, Thomas (1792). "A Vindication of the Rights of Brutes," in Craciun, Adriana (2002). A Routledge Literary Sourcebook on Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. Routledge.
- Vallentyne, Peter (2005). "Of Mice and Men: Equality and Animals" Archived 2016-04-13 at the Wayback Machine, The Journal of Ethics, Vol. 9, No. 3/4, pp. 403–433.
- Vallentyne, Peter (2007). "Of Mice and Men: Equality and Animals" in Nils Holtug, and Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen (eds.) (2007). Egalitarianism: New Essays on the Nature and Value of Equality. Oxford University Press.
- Waldau, Paul (2011). Animal Rights: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford University Press.
- Walker, Stephen (1983). Animal Thoughts. Routledge.
- Weir, Jack (2009). "Virtue Ethics," in Marc Bekoff. Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare. Greenwood. ISBN 0313352593
- Williams, Erin E. and DeMello, Margo (2007). Why Animals Matter. Prometheus Books.
- Wise, Steven M. (2000). Rattling the Cage: Toward Legal Rights for Animals. Da Capo Press.
- Wise, Steven M. (2002). Drawing the Line: Science and the Case for Animal Rights. Perseus.
- Wise, Steven M. (2004). "Animal Rights, One Step at a Time," in Sunstein and Nussbaum, op cit.
- Wise, Steven M. (2007). "Animal Rights" Archived 2008-11-18 at the Wayback Machine, Encyclopædia Britannica.
Further reading
- Lubinski, Joseph (2002). "Overview Summary of Animal Rights", The Animal Legal and Historical Center at Michigan State University College of Law.
- "Great Apes and the Law", The Animal Legal and Historical Center at Michigan State University College of Law.
- Bekoff, Marc (ed.) (2009). The Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare. Greenwood.
- Best, Steven and Nocella II, Anthony J. (eds). (2004). Terrorists or Freedom Fighters? Reflections on the Liberation of Animals. Lantern Books
- Chapouthier, Georges and Nouët, Jean-Claude (eds.) (1998). The Universal Declaration of Animal Rights. Ligue Française des Droits de l'Animal.
- Dawkins, Richard (1993). Gaps in the mind, in Cavalieri, Paola and Singer, Peter (eds.). The Great Ape Project. St. Martin's Griffin.
- Dombrowski, Daniel (1997). Babies and Beasts: The Argument from Marginal Cases. University of Illinois Press.
- Favre, David S. (2018). Respecting Animals: A Balanced Approach to Our Relationship with Pets, Food, and Wildlife. Prometheus. ISBN 978-1633884250.
- Finlayson, Lorna, "Let them eat oysters" (review of Peter Singer, Animal Liberation Now, Penguin, 2023, ISBN 978 1 84792 776 7, 368 pp; and Martha Nussbaum, Justice for Animals, Simon & Schuster, 2023, ISBN 978 1 982102 50 0, 372 pp.), London Review of Books, vol. 45, no.19 (5 October 2023), pp. 3, 5–8. The question of animal rights has been approached from a variety of theoretical orientations, including utilitarianism and capabilities approach ("CA") – none of them satisfactory to reviewer Lorna Finlayson, who teaches philosophy at England's University of Essex and ends up (p. 8) suggesting "think politically about animals: "It ought to be – it is – possible to arrange society differently." (p. 8.)
- Foltz, Richard (2006). Animals in Islamic Tradition and Muslim Cultures. Oneworld Publications.
- Franklin, Julian H. (2005). Animal Rights and Moral Philosophy. University of Columbia Press.
- Gruen, Lori (2003). "The Moral Status of Animals", Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, July 1, 2003.
- Gruen, Lori (2011). Ethics and Animals. Cambridge University Press.
- Hall, Lee (2006). Capers in the Churchyard: Animal Rights Advocacy in the Age of Terror. Nectar Bat Press.
- Linzey, Andrew and Clarke, Paul A. B.(eds.) (1990). Animal Rights: A Historic Anthology. Columbia University Press.
- Mann, Keith (2007). From Dusk 'til Dawn: An Insider's View of the Growth of the Animal Liberation Movement. Puppy Pincher Press.
- McArthur, Jo-Anne and Wilson, Keith (eds). (2020). Hidden: Animals in the Anthropocene. Lantern Publishing & Media.
- Neumann, Jean-Marc (2012). "The Universal Declaration of Animal Rights or the Creation of a New Equilibrium between Species". Animal Law Review volume 19–1.
- Nibert, David (2002). Animal Rights, Human Rights: Entanglements of Oppression and Liberation. Rowman and Litterfield.
- Nibert, David, ed. (2017). Animal Oppression and Capitalism. Praeger Publishing. ISBN 978-1440850738.
- Patterson, Charles (2002). Eternal Treblinka: Our Treatment of Animals and the Holocaust. Lantern.
- Rachels, James (1990). Created from Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism. Oxford University Press.
- Regan, Tom and Singer, Peter (eds.) (1976). Animal Rights and Human Obligations. Prentice-Hall.
- Spiegel, Marjorie (1996). The Dreaded Comparison: Human and Animal Slavery. Mirror Books.
- Sztybel, David (2006). "Can the Treatment of Animals Be Compared to the Holocaust?" Ethics and the Environment 11 (Spring): 97–132.
- Tobias, Michael (2000). Life Force: The World of Jainism. Asian Humanities Press.
- Wilson, Scott (2010). "Animals and Ethics" Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- Kymlicka, W., Donaldson, S. (2011) Zoopolis. A Political Theory of Animal Rights. Oxford University Press.
Veganism and vegetarianism | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Perspectives |
| ||||||
Ethics |
| ||||||
Food and drink | |||||||
Groups and events |
| ||||||
Companies | |||||||
Books, reports, journals |
| ||||||
Films and shows |
| ||||||
Magazines | |||||||
Academics, activists, authors, physicians |
| ||||||
Chefs and cookbook authors |
| ||||||
Restaurants | |||||||
Former restaurants | |||||||
Related |
Lists of countries by laws and law enforcement rankings | |
---|---|
Age of | |
Drugs and alcohol | |
Death | |
Guns | |
Punishment | |
Policing | |
Obscenity | |
Reproduction | |
Censorship | |
Human rights | |
Freedom of movement | |
Property and environment | |
Business | |
Violence | |
International ownership | |
Other | |