 |
Business | Industries | Finance | Tax |
| Index: > A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z |
|
|||||
| First Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next Last |
Animal rights is the concept that all or some animals are entitled to possess their own lives, and that animals are deserving of moral rights to protect their autonomy and well being. The animal rights view rejects the concept that animals are merely capital goods or property intended for the benefit of humans. The concept is often confused with animal welfare, which is the philosophy that takes cruelty towards animals and animal suffering into account, but that does not necessarily assign specific moral rights to them.
The animal rights philosophy does not necessarily maintain that human and non-human animals are equal. For example, animal rights advocates do not call for voting rights for chickens. Some also would make a distinction between sentient or self-aware animals and lower life forms, with the belief that only animals with 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 nervous systems or consciousness. They maintain that any human or human institution that commoditizes animals for food, entertainmentEntertainment Entertainment is an amusement or diversion intended to hold the attention of an audience or its participants. Examples of entertainment include: Animation (primarily traditional, computer, and stop-motion) Betting Chat Circus Dance Film Drin, clothingSee also List of types of clothing Introduction Humans often wear articles of clothing (also known as dress garments or attire on the body (for the alternative, see nudity). In its broadest sense, clothing includes coverings for the trunk and limbs as wel, scientific testing , or for any other purpose, infringes upon their fundamental rights to possess themselves and to pursue their own ends, which, therefore, is unethical.
One of the first philosophers to take animal rights seriously was one of the founders of modern utilitarianismUtilitarianism is a suggested theoretical framework for morality, based on quantitative maximisation of some definition of " utility" for society or humanity. Utilitarianism "The greatest good for the most people. or: "The greatest good over the least pai, Jeremy BenthamJeremy Bentham ( February 15, 1748 June 6, 1832) was an English gentleman, jurist, philosopher, eccentric, and legal and social reformer. He is best known as the founder of utilitarianism. The life of Jeremy Bentham Born in Spitalfields, London into a wea, who once wrote, "The 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." Bentham also argued that an animal's lack of rationality ought not to be held against it insofar as morality is concerned, for "a horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month old."
The concept of animal rights was the subject of an influential book - Animals' Rights: Considered in Relation to Social Progress - by EnglishEngland is the largest, the most populous, and the most densely populated of the four " Home Nations" which make up the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK). Occupying the south-eastern portion of the island of Great Britain, England social reformer Henry SaltHenry Stephens Salt ( September 20, 1851 April 19, 1939) was an influential English writer and campaigner for social reform in the fields of prisons, schools, economic institutions and the treatment of animals he was a noted anti- vivisectionist and pacif in 1892Events January 1 Ellis Island begins accepting immigrants to the United States. January 14 Death of Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence, second in line heir to the throne of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Next in line is his younger b. A year earlier, Salt had formed the Humanitarian League ; its objectives included the banning of hunting as a sport.
In modern times, the idea of animal rights was re-introduced by S. and R. Godlovitch, and J. Harris, with their 1979 book 'Animals, Men and Morals'. This was a collection of articles which restated the case for animal rights in a powerful and philosophically sophisticated way. It could justly be said that it was this work that reinvigorated the animal rights movement, and it inspired later philosophers to develop their ideas. It was, for example, in a review of this book, that Peter Singer (see below) first coined the term 'animal liberation'.
Among the most famous philosophical proponents of animal rights are the philosophers Peter Singer and Tom Regan, who hold views that have much in common but with different philosophical justifications (see below) and Gary Francione who presents an abolitionist view that non-human animals should have the basic right not to be treated as the property of humans. Activists Karen Davis of United Poultry Concerns, Ingrid Newkirk of PETA, have each also presented fully-fledged political/personal philosophies of animal rights.
Although Singer is said to be one of the ideological founders of today's animal rights movement, his philosophical approach to an animal's moral status is not based on the concept of rights, but on the principle of equal consideration of interests. His book, Animal Liberation, 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 ability to moralize (criminals and the insane), or on any other attribute that is inherently human, but rather on their ability to experience suffering. As animals also experience suffering, he argues, excluding animals from such consideration is a form of discrimination known as ' speciesism' - a term first coined by the British psychologist Richard D. Ryder.
Tom Regan ( The Case for Animal Rights ), on the other side, claims that non-human animals that are so-called "subjects-of-a-life" are bearers of rights like humans, although not necessarily of the same degree. This means that animals in this class have "inherent value" as individuals, and cannot merely be considered as means for an end. This is also called a "direct duty" view on the moral status of non-human animals. 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 those that can be regarded as "subjects-of-a-life." Regan argues that all normal mammals of at least one year of age would qualify in this regard.
While Singer is primarily concerned with improving 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 " Kantian" 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 the moral law; he believed we ought to show compassion, but primarily because to not do so brutalizes the human condition, and not for the sake of animals.
Despite these theoretical discrepancies, both Singer and Regan mostly agree about what to do in practice: for instance, they both concur in that the adoption of a vegan diet and the abolition of nearly all forms of animal experimentation are ethically mandatory.
Gary Francione's work ( Introduction to Animal Rights , et.al.) is based on the premise that if non-human animals are considered to be property than 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 presently is no actual animal rights movement in the United States, but only an animal-welfarist movement. In line with his philosophical position and his work in animal rights law (Animal Rights Law Project at Rutgers University), he points out that any effort which does not advocate the abolishment 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. Francione holds that a society which regards dogs and cats as family members yet kills cows, chickens, pigs, etc. for food exhibits "moral schizophrenia". Michael E. Berumen adopts a position similar to one shared by Bentham and Singer, in that he believes suffering rather than rationaltiy is what makes one eligible for the moral realm. Berumen believes universal morality can only be founded on the conjoint princple of impartial rationality, whereby we extend the rational requirement to avoid unnecessary harm to ourselves to others. Impartiality, by definition, requires us to extend this to all who can suffer, including other animals. Berumen contends that justified violation occurs only when we can prescribe our action as though it were a universal law, one applicable to all similar situations[1].Berumen's book Do No Evil: Ethics with Applications to Economic Theory and Business addresses some of the problems associated with the commercial use of animals.| Politics | Business | Finance |
 |
 |
 |
|