Tierrechte ist die Idee, bei der einige oder alle nichtmenschlichen Tiere Anspruch auf den Besitz ihres eigenen Lebens haben und dass ihre grundlegendsten Interessen - wie etwa die Notwendigkeit, Leiden zu vermeiden - das Recht haben sollten gleiche Überlegung wie ähnliche Interessen der Menschen. [3]
Ihre Befürworter lehnen die Zuweisung von moralischem Wert und fundamentalen Schutz allein aufgrund der Artenzugehörigkeit ab - eine Idee, die seit 1970 als Gattungismus bekannt ist, als der Begriff von Richard D. Ryder geprägt wurde - Sie argumentieren, es sei ein ebenso irrationales Vorurteil wie kein anderes. [4] Sie behaupten, dass Tiere nicht länger als Eigentum betrachtet oder als Nahrung, Kleidung, Forschungsthemen, Unterhaltung oder Lasttiere verwendet werden sollten. [5] Verschiedene kulturelle Traditionen Die Welt wie der Jainismus, der Taoismus, der Hinduismus, der Buddhismus und der Animismus befürworten auch einige Formen von Tierrechten.
Parallel zur Debatte über die moralischen Rechte wird das Tierrecht inzwischen an Justizschulen in Nordamerika umfassend gelehrt, und mehrere prominente Rechtsgelehrte wer? unterstützt die Ausdehnung von grundlegende rechtliche Rechte und Persönlichkeit auf zumindest einige Tiere. Bei den Tieren, die am häufigsten als Argumente für die Personlichkeit betrachtet werden, handelt es sich um Bonobos und Schimpansen. Dies wird von einigen Tierrechtsakademikern unterstützt, weil sie die Barriere der Spezies durchbrechen würde, von anderen jedoch abgelehnt, weil sie den moralischen Wert eher auf die mentale Komplexität als auf die Empfindsamkeit allein legt. [6]
Tierrechte argumentieren, dass nichtmenschliche Tiere keinen Sozialvertrag abschließen können und daher keine Inhaber von Rechten sein können, eine Ansicht des Philosophen Roger Scruton, der schreibt, dass nur Menschen Pflichten haben und daher nur Menschen Rechte haben. [19659009EinanderesArgumentdasmitderutilitaristischenTraditionverbundenististdassTierealsRessourcenverwendetwerdenkönnensolangeeskeinunnötigesLeidengibt[8] Sie haben zwar einen gewissen moralischen Status, sind aber den Menschen und ihren Interessen unterlegen Sie wurden möglicherweise außer Kraft gesetzt, obwohl das, was als "notwendiges" Leiden oder legitimes Aufgeben von Interessen gilt, erheblich variiert. [9] Bestimmte Formen des Tierrechtsaktivismus wie die Zerstörung von Fu Auch die Farmen und Tierlaboratorien der Animal Liberation Front wurden von der Tierrechtsbewegung selbst kritisiert, [10] sowie vom US-Kongress eine Reaktion mit der Verabschiedung von Gesetzen veranlasst, die diese Aktivitäten als Terrorismus strafrechtlich verfolgen ließen , einschließlich des Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. [11]
Historische Entwicklung im Westen [ edit ]
Sittenstatus und Tiere in der Antike [ edit
Aristoteles argumentierte, dass den Tieren die Vernunft (Logos) und die Menschen die Spitze darstellten der natürlichen Welt war der Respekt vor Tieren im antiken Griechenland jedoch sehr hoch. Einige Tiere galten als göttlich, z. Delphine
Im Genesis-Buch 1:26 (5. oder 6. Jahrhundert v. Chr.) Erhält Adam "die Herrschaft über die Fische des Meeres und über das Geflügel der Luft und über das Vieh und über alles." die Erde und über alles Kriechende, das auf der Erde kriecht. " Dominion braucht kein Eigentumsrecht zu haben, aber es wurde von einigen im Laufe der Jahrhunderte so interpretiert, dass es Eigentum bedeutet. [13]
Der zeitgenössische Philosoph Bernard Rollin schreibt, dass " Dominion keinen Missbrauch mehr nach sich zu ziehen oder zuzulassen, als die Herrschaft eines Elternteils über ein Kind genießt. "[14] Rollin erklärt weiter, dass die in den Zehn Geboten verkündete Anforderung des biblischen Sabbats" den Tieren voraussetzte, dass sie zusammen mit den Menschen einen Ruhetag erhalten sollten. Die Bibel verbietet es, mit einem Ochsen und einem Esel zusammen zu pflügen. (Deut. 22: 10,11.) Nach der rabbinischen Tradition beruht dieses Verbot auf der Not, die ein Esel erleiden würde, wenn er gezwungen wäre, mit einem Ochsen Schritt zu halten. Das ist natürlich weitaus mächtiger: Ebenso findet man das Verbot, einen Ochsen beim Mähen mit dem Getreide "zu verstümmeln" (5 Mose 25: 4–5), und sogar ein Umweltverbot gegen die Zerstörung von Bäumen, wenn eine Stadt belagert wird (5. Mose 20: 19–20) die uralten Vorschriften, die fast vergessen wurden, zeugen von einem beredten Bewußtsein des Status der Tiere als sich selbst ", ein Punkt, den auch Norm Phelps bestätigt.
Theophrastus (ca. 371 - ca. 287 v. Chr.), Einer der Schüler von Aristoteles , argumentierte, dass Tiere auch Argumentation hatten (19459015) logismos ) und sich gegen das Essen von Fleisch mit der Begründung aussprachen, dass es sie des Lebens beraubt und deshalb ungerecht sei. [17][18] Theophrastus setzte sich nicht durch; Richard Sorabji schreibt, dass die gegenwärtigen Einstellungen zu Tieren auf die Erben der westlichen christlichen Tradition zurückgehen können, indem sie die Hierarchie auswählen, die Aristoteles zu bewahren suchte. [12]
Plutarch (1. Jh. V. Chr.) In seinem Leben von Cato the Elder stellt fest, dass Gesetz und Gerechtigkeit zwar nur für Männer gelten, Wohltätigkeit und Wohltätigkeit gegenüber Tieren jedoch für ein sanftes Herz charakteristisch sind. Dies soll eine Korrektur und einen Fortschritt gegenüber der rein nützlichen Behandlung von Tieren und Sklaven durch Cato selbst sein. [19]
Tom Beauchamp (2011) schreibt, dass der umfassendste Bericht in der Antike, wie Tiere sollten behandelt wurde von dem neoplatonischen Philosophen Porphyr (234 - ca. 305 n.Chr.), in seinem über Abstinenz von Tierfutter und über Abstinenz von Tötung von Tieren 17. [20]
beschrieben : Tiere als Automaten [ edit ]
Frühe Tierschutzgesetze in Europa [ edit ]
Laut Richard D. Ryder ist der erste bekannt In Europa wurde 1635 ein Tierschutzgesetz verabschiedet, das das Abziehen von Wolle von Schafen und das Anbringen von Pflügen an Pferdeschwänzen untersagte. Dies bezog sich auf "die Grausamkeit der Tiere" [21] Schutz der Haustiere in Nordamerika wurde von der Massachusetts Bay Colo übergeben ny. [22] Die Verfassung der Kolonie beruhte auf The Body of Liberties des Reverend Nathaniel Ward (1578–1652), eines englischen Anwalts, puritanischer Geistlicher und Absolvent der University of Cambridge. Wards Liste der "Riten" beinhaltete den Ritus 92: "Niemand darf Tirrany oder Crueltie gegenüber irgendeiner rohen Kreatur ausüben, die normalerweise für den Gebrauch des Menschen aufbewahrt wird." Der Historiker Roderick Nash (1989) schreibt, auf dem Höhepunkt des Einflusses von René Descartes in Europa - und seiner Ansicht, dass Tiere nur Automaten seien -, ist es von Bedeutung, dass die New Englander ein Gesetz formulierten, wonach Tiere keine gefühllosen Maschinen seien. [23]
Auch in England haben die Puritaner Tierschutzgesetze erlassen. Kathleen Kete schreibt, dass Tierschutzgesetze 1654 im Rahmen der Verordnungen des Protektorats erlassen wurden - der Regierung von Oliver Cromwell (1599–1658), die nach dem englischen Bürgerkrieg von 1653 bis 1659 dauerte. Cromwell mochte keine Blutsportarten, zu denen Hahnenkämpfe, Hahnwerfen, Hundekämpfe, Stierköder und Stierlauf gehörten, die das Fleisch zart machen sollen. Diese waren in Dörfern und auf dem Messegelände zu sehen und wurden mit Müßiggang, Trunkenheit und Glücksspiel in Verbindung gebracht. Kete schreibt, dass die Puritaner die biblische Herrschaft des Menschen über Tiere als verantwortungsvolle Verwaltung und nicht als Eigentum verstanden haben. Die Ablehnung des Blutsports wurde Teil der Übergriffe der Puritaner in das Leben der Menschen und die Tierschutzgesetze wurden während der Restauration aufgehoben, als Karl II. 1660 auf den Thron zurückkehrte. [24]
René Descartes edit ]
| “ | [Animals] essen ohne Genuss, schreien ohne Schmerzen, wachsen ohne es zu wissen; sie wünschen nichts, fürchten nichts, wissen nichts. - Nicolas Malebranche (1638–1715) [25] | “ |
Der große Einfluss des 17. Jahrhunderts war der französische Philosoph René Descartes (1596–1650), dessen Meditations (1641) die Haltung von Tieren bis ins 20. Jahrhundert hinein beeinflusste. [26] Descartes schlug eine mechanistische Theorie des Universums vor, deren Ziel es war, zu zeigen, dass die Welt ohne Anspielung auf subjektive Erfahrungen ausgemacht werden kann. [27]
| “ | Halten Sie dann dieselbe Ansicht des Hundes vor, der seinen Herrn verloren hat, der ihn in allen Durchgängen mit Schreien der Trauer gesucht hat, der unruhig und unruhig in das Haus kommt, nach unten geht, nach oben geht; geht von Raum zu Raum, findet schließlich in seinem Arbeitszimmer den Meister, den er liebt, und betönt seine Freude durch leises Wimmern, Frisuren und Streicheln. Es gibt Barbaren, die diesen Hund ergreifen, der den Menschen in Treue und Freundschaft so sehr übertrifft, ihn an einen Tisch nagelt und ihn lebend zerlegt, um Ihnen die mesaraischen Venen zu zeigen! Du entdeckst in ihm die gleichen Gefühlsorgane wie in dir. Antworte mir, Mechaniker, hat die Natur alle Quellen des Gefühls in diesem Tier so arrangiert, dass er nicht fühlen kann? - Voltaire (1694–1778) [28] | “ |
Sein mechanistischer Ansatz wurde auf das Thema Tierbewusstsein ausgedehnt. Der Geist war für Descartes etwas außerhalb des physischen Universums, eine getrennte Substanz, die den Menschen mit dem Geist Gottes verband. Die Nichtmenschen dagegen waren für Descartes nichts anderes als komplexe Automaten ohne Seelen, Verstand oder Vernunft. [26]
Behandlung von Tieren als Pflicht des Menschen gegenüber sich selbst [ edit
] John Locke, Immanuel Kant [ edit ]
Gegen Descartes argumentierte der britische Philosoph John Locke (1632–1704) in Einige Überlegungen zur Erziehung (1693) , dass Tiere Gefühle hatten und diese unnötige Grausamkeit gegen sie moralisch falsch war, aber dass das Recht, nicht verletzt zu werden, entweder dem Besitzer des Tieres oder dem Menschen anhaftete, der durch Grausamkeit verletzt wurde. Er diskutierte, wie wichtig es sei, Kinder an der Folterung von Tieren zu hindern, und schrieb: "Für die Gewohnheit, Tiere zu quälen und zu töten, werden sie nach und nach ihren Verstand auch gegenüber Männern verhärten." [29]
Lockes Position wiederholte das von Thomas von Aquin (1225–1274). Paul Waldau schreibt, dass das Argument in 1. Korinther (9: 9–10) gefunden werden kann, als Paul fragt: "Ist es für Ochsen, dass Gott betroffen ist? Spricht er nicht für uns allein? Es wurde für uns geschrieben. " Christliche Philosophen interpretierten dies so, dass der Mensch keine direkte Pflicht gegenüber nichtmenschlichen Tieren hatte, sondern nur die Pflicht hatte, sie vor den Auswirkungen der Grausamkeit zu schützen. [30]
Der deutsche Philosoph Immanuel Kant ( 1724–1804) widersprach Aquinas der Vorstellung, dass Menschen direkte Pflichten gegenüber Nichtmenschen haben. Für Kant war die Tierquälerei nur deshalb falsch, weil sie für die Menschheit schlecht war. Er argumentierte 1785, dass "Tierquälerei der Pflicht des Menschen gegenüber selbst zuwiderläuft, weil er in ihm das Gefühl der Sympathie für ihr Leiden und damit eine für die Moralität sehr nützliche natürliche Tendenz in sich tötet." andere Menschen werden geschwächt. "[31]
18. Jahrhundert: Zentralität der Empfindsamkeit [ edit ]
Jean-Jacques Rousseau bearbeiten ]
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) argumentierte in Diskurs über Ungleichheit (1754) für die Aufnahme von Tieren in das Naturrecht aus Gründen der Empfindsamkeit: "Mit dieser Methode stellen wir auch ein Ende der altehrwürdigen Auseinandersetzungen um die Beteiligung von Tieren am Naturrecht: denn es ist klar, dass sie dieses Recht nicht anerkennen können, da sie an Intelligenz und Freiheit nicht beteiligt sind, da sie jedoch in gewissem Maße an unserer Natur teilnehmen Als Folge der Sensibilität, mit der sie ausgestattet sind, sollten sie an der Natura teilnehmen l recht; so dass die Menschheit sogar gegenüber den Bestien einer Art Verpflichtung unterworfen ist. Es scheint tatsächlich so zu sein, dass, wenn ich meine Mitgeschöpfe nicht verletzen muss, dies weniger der Fall ist, weil sie vernünftig sind, als weil sie fühlende Wesen sind. Diese Eigenschaft, die sowohl Männern als auch Tieren gemein ist, sollte berechtigt sein Letzteres zumindest zum Privileg, von den ersteren nicht mutwillig misshandelt zu werden. " [32]
In seiner Abhandlung über Erziehung Emile oder On Education (1762) ), ermutigte er Eltern, ihre Kinder vegetarisch aufzuziehen, und glaubte, dass das Essen der Kultur, die ein Kind aufwuchs, eine wichtige Rolle in dem Charakter und der Disposition spielte, die sie als Erwachsene entwickeln würden. "Man versucht jedoch zu erklären In der Praxis ist es sicher, dass große Fleischesser normalerweise grausamer und grausamer sind als andere Männer. Dies wurde zu allen Zeiten und an allen Orten erkannt. Die Engländer sind für ihre Grausamkeit bekannt, während die Gaures die sanftesten Männer sind. Alle Wilden sind grausam, und nicht ihre Sitten tendieren in diese Richtung. Ihre Grausamkeit ist das Ergebnis ihres Essens. "
Jeremy Bentham [ edit ]
Vier Jahre später, einer Der Gründer des modernen Utilitarismus, der englische Philosoph Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832), widersetzte sich zwar dem Konzept der Naturrechte, argumentierte jedoch, dass die Fähigkeit zu leiden, der Maßstab für den Umgang mit anderen Wesen sei. Bentham behauptet, dass das Leidensvermögen das Recht auf gleiche Gegenleistung einräumt. Gleichwertige Gegenleistung besteht darin, dass das Interesse einer Person, die von einer Handlung betroffen ist, zu berücksichtigen ist und das gleiche Interesse eines anderen Wesens hat. Wenn Rationalität das Kriterium wäre, müssten viele Menschen, darunter Säuglinge und Behinderte, auch so behandelt werden, als wären sie Dinge. [34] Er schloss nicht die Schlussfolgerung, dass Menschen und Nichtmenschen eine gleichwertige moralische Bedeutung hätten, argumentierten jedoch Letztere sollten berücksichtigt werden. Er schrieb 1789, als afrikanische Sklaven von den Franzosen befreit wurden:
Die Franzosen haben bereits entdeckt, dass die Schwärzung der Haut kein Grund ist, dass ein Mensch ohne Wiedergutmachung dem Willkür eines Peinigers ausgesetzt wird. Eines Tages kann man erkennen, dass die Anzahl der Beine, die Zottigkeit der Haut oder die Beendigung des os sacrum Gründe sind, die ebenso unzulänglich sind, um ein empfindliches Wesen auf dasselbe Schicksal zu verlassen. Was sollte die unüberwindliche Linie noch nachzeichnen? Ist es die Fähigkeit der Vernunft oder vielleicht die Fähigkeit des Diskurses? Aber ein ausgewachsenes Pferd oder Hund ist unvergleichlich ein vernünftigeres, als ein Tier, das man besser umsetzen kann, als ein Kind eines Tages oder einer Woche oder sogar eines Monats. Aber wenn der Fall anders wäre, was würde es nützen? die Frage ist nicht, können sie Vernunft ?, noch können sie sprechen? Aber können sie leiden? [35]
19. Jahrhundert: Entstehung von jus animalium [ edit [19]
Im 19. Jahrhundert explodierte das Interesse am Tierschutz, insbesondere in England. Debbie Legge und Simon Brooman schreiben, dass sich die gebildeten Klassen um die Einstellung zu Alten, Bedürftigen, Kindern und Geisteskranken sorgten und dass diese Sorge auf Nichtmenschen ausgedehnt wurde. Vor dem 19. Jahrhundert gab es Strafverfahren wegen schlechter Behandlung von Tieren, jedoch nur wegen der Schädigung des Tieres als Eigentum. Im Jahr 1793 wurde John Cornish beispielsweise nicht für schuldig befunden, ein Pferd verstümmelt zu haben, nachdem er die Zunge des Tieres herausgezogen hatte; der Richter entschied, dass Cornish nur für schuldig befunden werden konnte, wenn Beweise gegen den Eigentümer vorlagen. [36]
Ab 1800 gab es in England mehrere Versuche, ein Tierschutzgesetz einzuführen. Der erste war ein Gesetzentwurf gegen Stierköder, der im April 1800 von einem schottischen Abgeordneten, Sir William Pulteney (1729–1805), eingeführt wurde. Sie wurde unter anderem mit der Begründung, sie sei gegen die Arbeiterklasse gerichtet, abgelehnt und mit zwei Stimmen besiegt. Ein weiterer Versuch wurde 1802 unternommen, diesmal gegen den Sekretär im Krieg, William Windham (1750–1810), der sagte, der Gesetzentwurf werde von Methodisten und Jakobinern unterstützt, die "den alten englischen Charakter durch die Abschaffung aller ländlichen Gebiete zerstören wollen" sports. " [37]
Im Jahr 1809 führte Lord Erskine (1750-1823) einen Gesetzesentwurf ein, um Rinder und Pferde vor böswilligen Verletzungen, mutwilliger Grausamkeit und Schlägen zu schützen. Er erklärte dem House of Lords, dass Tiere nur als Eigentum geschützt seien: " Die Tiere selbst sind nicht geschützt - das Gesetz betrachtet sie nicht wesentlich - sie haben keine Rechte!" [19659071] Erskine kombinierte in seiner Parlamentsrede das Vokabular für Tierrechte und Treuhandschaft mit einem theologischen Aufruf, der in der Präambel des Gesetzentwurfs zur Unterdrückung von Grausamkeit enthalten war. [39] Das Gesetz wurde von den Lords verabschiedet, jedoch von den Commons von Windham abgelehnt es würde gegen die "unteren Ordnungen" verwendet werden, wenn die wirklichen Schuldigen ihre Arbeitgeber wären. [37]
Martin's Act [ edit ]
| " | Wenn ich einen Esel hätte, der nicht gehen würde, Glaubst du, ich würde ihn plump machen? Nein, nein, nein! | " |
Im Jahr 1821 wurde der Gesetzentwurf über die Behandlung von Pferden von Oberst Richard Martin (1754–1834), Abgeordneter von Galway in Irland, eingeführt, aber im Unterhaus wurde gelacht, dass als Nächstes Rechte für Esel bestehen würden. Hunde und Katzen. [41] Von George IV mit dem Spitznamen "Humanity Dick" ausgezeichnet, gelang es Martin schließlich 1822 mit seiner "Krankheit der Pferde- und Viehrechnung" - oder "Martin's Act", wie es genannt wurde - was die erste der Welt war wichtiger Teil des Tierschutzgesetzes. Am 22. Juni desselben Jahres erhielt er die königliche Zustimmung als Gesetz um die grausame und unangemessene Behandlung von Vieh zu verhindern, und machte es zu einer Straftat, die mit Geldstrafen von bis zu fünf Pfund oder zwei Monaten Gefängnis bestraft werden konnte Pferde, Stute, Wallache, Maultier, Esel, Ochse, Kuh, Färse, Ochse, Schaf oder andere Rinder missbrauchen oder misshandeln. " [36]
Der Erfolg des Gesetzentwurfs lag in der Persönlichkeit von "Humanity Dick", der den Spott des Unterhauses ablehnen konnte und dessen Humor die Aufmerksamkeit des Hauses erregen konnte. [36] Es war Martin selbst, der das Gesetz brachte Erste Anklage nach dem Gesetz, als er Bill Burns, einen Kostenhändler - einen Straßenverkäufer von Obst - verhaftet hatte, weil er einen Esel geschlagen hatte, und die Verletzungen des Tieres vor einem angeblich erstaunten Gericht vorgeführt hatte. Burns wurde zu einer Geldstrafe verurteilt, und Zeitungen und Musikhallen waren voller Witze darüber, wie Martin sich auf die Aussage eines Esels verlassen hatte. [42]
Andere Länder verfolgten dies, indem sie Gesetze verabschiedeten oder Entscheidungen treffen, die Tiere begünstigen . Im Jahr 1822 entschieden die Gerichte in New York, dass mutwillige Tierquälerei ein Vergehen im Gewohnheitsrecht war. [22] In Frankreich gelang es Jacques Philippe Delmas de Grammont 1850, den Loi Grammont zu bestreiten, der die Grausamkeit untersagte gegen Haustiere und führte zu jahrelangen Auseinandersetzungen darüber, ob Stiere als inländisch eingestuft werden könnten, um den Stierkampf zu verbieten. [43] Der Staat Washington folgte 1859, New York 1866, Kalifornien 1868 und Florida 1889. [43] 19659090] In England erweiterte eine Reihe von Ergänzungen die Reichweite des Gesetzes von 1822, das 1835 zum Grausamkeitsgesetz gegen Tiere wurde, wobei Hahnenkämpfe, Hetze und Hundekämpfe verboten wurden, gefolgt von einer weiteren Änderung im Jahre 1849 und 1876.
Gesellschaft zur Verhütung von Tierquälerei [ edit ]
| “ | Auf einer Tagung der Gesellschaft, die zur Verhütung von Tierquälerei eingesetzt wurde, am 16. Juni 1824 im Old Slaughter's Coffee House in der St. Martin's Lane: F. Buxton Esqr, Vorsitzender, Es wurde gelöst: Dass ein Ausschuss ernannt wird, der die Veröffentlichung von Traktaten, Predigten und ähnlichen Formen der Beeinflussung der öffentlichen Meinung beaufsichtigen soll, bestehend aus den folgenden Herren: Sir Jas. Mackintosh MP, A Warre Esqr. MP, Wm. Wilberforce Esqr. MP, Basil Montagu Esqr., Revd. Ein Broome, Revd. G Bonner, Revd G A Luke, A E Kendal Esqr., Lewis Gompertz Esqr., Wm. Mudford Esqr., Dr. Henderson. Ebenfalls gelöst: Ein Ausschuss soll ernannt werden, um Maßnahmen zur Untersuchung der Märkte und Straßen der Metropole, der Schlachthöfe, des Verhaltens von Kutschern usw., usw. zu ergreifen, die aus folgenden Herren bestehen: T F Buxton Esqr. MP, Richard Martin Esqr., MP, Sir James Graham, LB Allen Esqr., CC Wilson Esqr., Jno. Brogden Esqr., Alderman Brydges, A E Kendal Esqr., E Lodge Esqr., J Martin Esqr. T G Meymott Esqr. A. Broome, Ehrensekretär [42] | “ |
Richard Martin erkannte bald, dass die Richter den Martin Act nicht ernst nahmen und nicht zuverlässig durchgesetzt wurden. Martins Act wurde von verschiedenen Sozialreformern unterstützt, die keine Parlamentarier waren. Ein informelles Netzwerk hatte sich um die Bemühungen von Reverend Arthur Broome (1779-1837) versammelt, um eine freiwillige Organisation zu schaffen, die die Tierfreundlichkeit fördert. Broome stellte Stellungnahmen in Briefen, die 1821 in verschiedenen Zeitschriften veröffentlicht oder zusammengefasst wurden. [45] Nachdem Richard Martins Anti-Grausamkeit gegen das Viehgesetz 1822 verabschiedet worden war, versuchte Broome, eine Gesellschaft zur Verhütung von Grausamkeit für Tiere zu bilden zusammen die Schirmherrschaft von Personen, die von sozialem Rang waren und sich für soziale Reformen einsetzen. Broome organisierte und leitete im November 1822 ein Treffen der Sympathisanten, in dem vereinbart wurde, dass eine Gesellschaft gegründet werden sollte und Broome zu seinem Sekretär ernannt wurde, der Versuch jedoch nur von kurzer Dauer war. [46] Im Jahr 1824 arrangierte Broome ein neues Treffen in Old Slaughter's Coffee House in der St. Martin's Lane, einem von Künstlern und Schauspielern frequentierten Londoner Café. Die Gruppe traf sich am 16. Juni 1824 und bestand aus mehreren Abgeordneten: Richard Martin, Sir James Mackintosh (1765–1832), Sir Thomas Buxton (1786–1845), William Wilberforce (1759–1833) und Sir James Graham ( 1792–1861), der Abgeordneter war und 1826 erneut Mitglied wurde. [40]
Sie beschlossen, eine "Gesellschaft zur Verhinderung von Tierquälerei" zu gründen. die Gesellschaft zur Verhütung von Tierquälerei, wie sie bekannt wurde. Sie beschloss, Männer zu schicken, um Schlachthöfe, Smithfield Market, zu inspizieren, wo Viehbestand seit dem 10. Jahrhundert verkauft worden war, und die Behandlung von Pferden durch Kutscher zu untersuchen. [40] Die Gesellschaft wurde 1840 zur Royal Society, als sie eine Königliche Charta von Königin Victoria, die sich entschieden gegen Vivisektion ausgesprochen hatte 1945920 [47]
Ab 1824 wurden mehrere Bücher veröffentlicht, die sich mit Fragen der Tierrechte befassten und nicht allein Schutz. Lewis Gompertz (1783 / 4–1865), einer der Männer, die an der ersten Sitzung der SPCA teilnahmen, veröffentlichte Moral Inquiries zur Situation des Menschen und der Brute (1824) und argumentierte, dass jedes lebende Geschöpf, Mensch und Nichtmensch, hat mehr Recht auf den Gebrauch seines eigenen Körpers als jeder andere, der es benutzt, und dass unsere Pflicht, das Glück zu fördern, für alle Wesen gleichermaßen gilt. Edward Nicholson (1849–1912), Leiter der Bodleian Library an der University of Oxford, argumentierte Rechte eines Tieres (1879), dass Tiere das gleiche natürliche Recht auf Leben und Freiheit haben wie Menschen. Abgesehen von Descartes 'mechanistischer Sicht - oder wie er die "neo-kartesische Schlange" nannte, "fehlt ihnen das Bewusstsein." [48] Andere Autoren der Zeit, die erkundeten, ob Tiere natürliche (oder moralische) Rechte haben könnten, waren Edward Payson Evans (1831– 1917), John Muir (1838–1914) und J. Howard Moore (1862–1916), US-amerikanischer Zoologe und Autor von The Universal Sippe (19459018) (1906) und The New Ethics (1907). [49]
Arthur Schopenhauer [ edit ]
Die Entwicklung des Konzeptes der Tierrechte in England wurde stark unterstützt d des deutschen Philosophen Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860). Er schrieb, dass die Europäer "immer mehr zu einem Gefühl erwachten, dass Tiere Rechte haben, in dem Maße, in dem der merkwürdige Gedanke allmählich überwunden und entwachsen ist, dass das Tierreich nur zum Wohl und zur Freude des Menschen entstanden ist" (19459126) [51]
Er setzte sich für Vegetarismus ein und argumentierte, dass Männer, solange der Tod eines Tieres schnell war, mehr leiden würden, wenn sie kein Fleisch aßen, als Tiere, wenn sie gegessen wurden. [52] Schopenhauer auch Theoretisierte, dass der Grund, warum Menschen der " unnatürlichen Diät " des Fleischessens erlegen waren, auf das unnatürliche, kalte Klima zurückzuführen war, in das sie auswanderten, und die Notwendigkeit von Fleisch, um in einem solchen Klima überleben zu können, für Obst und Gemüse könnte zu dieser Zeit nicht zuverlässig kultiviert werden. [53] Er applaudierte der Tierschutzbewegung in England - "Zur Ehre der Engländer, so heißt es, dass sie die ersten sind, die den Protec in wirklich ernsthafter Weise erweitert haben Er machte den Arm des Gesetzes gegen Tiere. "[51] Er argumentierte auch gegen die vorherrschende kantianische Vorstellung, dass Tierquälerei nur insoweit falsch ist, als sie den Menschen brutal macht:
Weil also die christliche Moral die Tiere außer Acht lässt, werden sie sofort in der philosophischen Moral verboten. es sind bloße "Dinge", bloß bedeutet zu irgendeinem Zweck. Sie können daher für Vivisektion, Jagd, Coursing, Stierkampf und Pferderennen verwendet werden und können zusammen mit schweren Steinkarren zu Tode geschlagen werden. Schämen Sie sich auf eine solche Moral, die würdig ist von Parias, Chandalas und Mlechchhas, und die die ewige Essenz, die in jedem Lebewesen existiert, nicht erkennt ... [50]
Percy Bysshe Shelley edit ]
Der englische Dichter und Dramatiker Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792–1822) verfasste aus ethischen und gesundheitlichen Gründen zwei Essays, in denen er zu einer vegetarischen Diät aufrief: A Vindication of Natural Diet (1813) und On das Gemüsesystem der Ernährung (1829, posth.).
John Stuart Mill [ edit ]
John Stuart Mill (1806–1873), der englische Philosoph, argumentierte auch, dass der Utilitarismus die Tiere berücksichtigen muss und schrieb 1864: [1945901419659125] Jahrprüfung erforderlich "Nichts ist für den Menschen natürlicher und bis zu einem gewissen Punkt in der Kultivierung universeller, als die Freuden und Schmerzen anderer als Respekt zu würdigen genau im Verhältnis zu ihrer Gleichheit mit uns selbst. ... Zugegeben, jede Übung bereitet den Tieren mehr Schmerz, als sie dem Menschen Freude bereitet, ist diese Praxis moralisch oder unmoralisch? Und wenn genau in demselben Verhältnis, wie die Menschen ihre Köpfe aus dem Himmel heben Slug der Selbstsucht, antworten sie nicht mit einer Stimme "unmoralisch", die Moral des Gebrauchsprinzips sei für immer verurteilt. "[54]
Charles Darwin [ edit
James Rachels schreibt, dass Charles Darwins (1809–1882) Über die Entstehung der Arten (1859), der die Evolutionstheorie durch natürliche Auslese präsentierte, die Sichtweise des Menschen revolutionierte ihre Beziehung zu anderen Arten. Darwin argumentierte, dass der Mensch nicht nur eine direkte Verwandtschaft mit anderen Tieren hatte, sondern letztere auch ein soziales, geistiges und moralisches Leben führte. [55] Er schrieb in seinen Notebooks (1837): "Tiere - wen Wir haben unsere Sklaven gemacht, die wir nicht als gleichwertig erachten: - Sklavenhalter wollen nicht den Schwarzen anders machen? "[56] Später in The Descent of Man (1871), er argumentiert: "Es gibt keinen grundlegenden Unterschied zwischen dem Menschen und den höheren Säugetieren in seinen geistigen Fähigkeiten", indem er Tieren die Kraft der Vernunft, Entscheidungsfindung, Gedächtnis, Sympathie und Vorstellungskraft zuschreibt. [55]
Rachels schreibt, dass Darwin die moralischen Implikationen der kognitiven Ähnlichkeiten zur Kenntnis genommen habe und argumentiert, dass "die Menschheit den niederen Tieren" eine der "edelsten Tugenden war, mit denen der Mensch ausgestattet ist". Er war entschieden gegen jegliche Art von Tierquälerei, einschließlich der Fallenstellung. Er schrieb in einem Brief, dass er Vivisection für "echte Untersuchungen über die Physiologie" unterstützte, aber nicht aus bloß verdammter und abscheulicher Neugier. Es ist ein Thema, das mich vor Entsetzen krank macht ... "1875 bezeugte er vor einer Königlichen Kommission für Vivisection , Lobbying für eine Gesetzesvorlage, um sowohl die in der Vivisektion verwendeten Tiere als auch das Studium der Physiologie zu schützen. Rachels schreibt, dass die Befürworter der damaligen Tierrechte, wie Frances Power Cobbe, Darwin nicht als Verbündeten sahen. [55]
US-amerikanischer SPCA, Frances Power Cobbe, Anna Kingsford [ edit ] 19659137]Anna Kingsford, one of the first English women to graduate in medicine, published The Perfect Way in Diet (1881), advocating vegetarianism.
An early proposal for legal rights for animals came from a group of citizens in Ashtabula County, Ohio. Around 1844, the group proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution stating that if slaves from slave states were receiving representation as 3/5 of a person on the basis that they were animal property, all the animal property of the free states should receive representation also.[57]
The first animal protection group in the United States, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), was founded by Henry Bergh in April 1866. Bergh had been appointed by President Abraham Lincoln to a diplomatic post in Russia, and had been disturbed by the mistreatment of animals he witnessed there. He consulted with the president of the RSPCA in London, and returned to the United States to speak out against bullfights, cockfights, and the beating of horses. He created a "Declaration of the Rights of Animals", and in 1866 persuaded the New York state legislature to pass anti-cruelty legislation and to grant the ASPCA the authority to enforce it.[58]
In 1875, the Irish social reformer Frances Power Cobbe (1822–1904) founded the Society for the Protection of Animals Liable to Vivisection, the world's first organization opposed to animal research, which became the National Anti-Vivisection Society. In 1880, the English feminist Anna Kingsford (1846–1888) became one of the first English women to graduate in medicine, after studying for her degree in Paris, and the only student at the time to do so without having experimented on animals. She published The Perfect Way in Diet (1881), advocating vegetarianism, and in the same year founded the Food Reform Society. She was also vocal in her opposition to experimentation on animals.[59] In 1898, Cobbe set up the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, with which she campaigned against the use of dogs in research, coming close to success with the 1919 Dogs (Protection) Bill, which almost became law.
Ryder writes that, as the interest in animal protection grew in the late 1890s, attitudes toward animals among scientists began to harden. They embraced the idea that what they saw as anthropomorphism—the attribution of human qualities to nonhumans—was unscientific. Animals had to be approached as physiological entities only, as Ivan Pavlov wrote in 1927, "without any need to resort to fantastic speculations as to the existence of any possible subjective states." It was a position that hearkened back to Descartes in the 17th century, that nonhumans were purely mechanical, with no rationality and perhaps even no consciousness.[60]
Friedrich Nietzsche[edit]
Avoiding utilitarianism, Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) found other reasons to defend animals. He argued that "The sight of blind suffering is the spring of the deepest emotion."[61] He once wrote: "For man is the cruelest animal. At tragedies, bull-fights, and crucifixions hath he hitherto been happiest on earth; and when he invented his hell, behold, that was his heaven on earth."[62] Throughout his writings, he speaks of the human being as an animal.[63]
Henry Salt[edit]
In 1894, Henry Salt (1851–1939), a former master at Eton, who had set up the Humanitarian League to lobby for a ban on hunting the year before, published Animals' Rights: Considered in Relation to Social Progress.[64] He wrote that the object of the essay was to "set the principle of animals' rights on a consistent and intelligible footing."[65] Concessions to the demands for jus animalium had been made grudgingly to date, he wrote, with an eye on the interests of animals qua property, rather than as rights bearers:
Even the leading advocates of animal rights seem to have shrunk from basing their claim on the only argument which can ultimately be held to be a really sufficient one—the assertion that animals, as well as men, though, of course, to a far less extent than men, are possessed of a distinctive individuality, and, therefore, are in justice entitled to live their lives with a due measure of that "restricted freedom" to which Herbert Spencer alludes.[65]
He argued that there was no point in claiming rights for animals if those rights were subordinated to human desire, and took issue with the idea that the life of a human might have more moral worth. "[The] notion of the life of an animal having 'no moral purpose,' belongs to a class of ideas which cannot possibly be accepted by the advanced humanitarian thought of the present day—it is a purely arbitrary assumption, at variance with our best instincts, at variance with our best science, and absolutely fatal (if the subject be clearly thought out) to any full realization of animals' rights. If we are ever going to do justice to the lower races, we must get rid of the antiquated notion of a 'great gulf' fixed between them and mankind, and must recognize the common bond of humanity that unites all living beings in one universal brotherhood."[65]
20th century: Animal rights movement[edit]
Brown Dog Affair, Lizzy Lind af Hageby[edit]
In 1902, Lizzy Lind af Hageby (1878–1963), a Swedish feminist, and a friend, Lisa Shartau, traveled to England to study medicine at the London School of Medicine for Women, intending to learn enough to become authoritative anti-vivisection campaigners. In the course of their studies, they witnessed several animal experiments, and published the details as The Shambles of Science: Extracts from the Diary of Two Students of Physiology (1903). Their allegations included that they had seen a brown terrier dog dissected while conscious, which prompted angry denials from the researcher, William Bayliss, and his colleagues. After Stephen Coleridge of the National Anti-Vivisection Society accused Bayliss of having violated the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876, Bayliss sued and won, convincing a court that the animal had been anesthetized as required by the Act.[66]
In response, anti-vivisection campaigners commissioned a statue of the dog to be erected in Battersea Park in 1906, with the plaque: "Men and Women of England, how long shall these Things be?" The statue caused uproar among medical students, leading to frequent vandalism of the statue and the need for a 24-hour police guard. The affair culminated in riots in 1907 when 1,000 medical students clashed with police, suffragettes and trade unionists in Trafalgar Square. Battersea Council removed the statue from the park under cover of darkness two years later.[66]
Coral Lansbury (1985) and Hilda Kean (1998) write that the significance of the affair lay in the relationships that formed in support of the "Brown Dog Done to Death", which became a symbol of the oppression the women's suffrage movement felt at the hands of the male political and medical establishment. Kean argues that both sides saw themselves as heirs to the future. The students saw the women and trade unionists as representatives of anti-science sentimentality, while the women saw themselves as progressive, with the students and their teachers belonging to a previous age.[67]
Development of veganism[edit]
Members of the English Vegetarian Society who avoided the use of eggs and animal milk in the 19th and early 20th century were known as strict vegetarians. The International Vegetarian Union cites an article informing readers of alternatives to shoe leather in the Vegetarian Society's magazine in 1851 as evidence of the existence of a group that sought to avoid animal products entirely. There was increasing unease within the Society from the start of the 20th century onwards with regards to egg and milk consumption, and in 1923 its magazine wrote that the "ideal position for vegetarians is [complete] abstinence from animal products."[68]
Mahatma Gandhi (1869–1948) argued in 1931 before a meeting of the Society in London that vegetarianism should be pursued in the interests of animals, and not only as a human health issue. He met both Henry Salt and Anna Kingsford, and read Salt's A Plea for Vegetarianism (1880). Salt wrote in the pamphlet that "a Vegetarian is still regarded, in ordinary society, as little better than a madman."[68] In 1944, several members, led by Donald Watson (1910–2016), decided to break from the Vegetarian Society over the issue of egg and milk use. Watson coined the term "vegan" for those whose diet included no animal products, and they formed the British Vegan Society on November 1 that year.[69]
Tierschutzgesetz[edit]
On coming to power in January 1933, the Nazi Party passed a comprehensive set of animal protection laws. The laws were similar to those that already existed in England, though more detailed and with severe penalties for breaking them. Arnold Arluke and Boria Sax write that the Nazis tried to abolish the distinction between humans and animals, to the point where many people were regarded as less valuable than animals.[70]
In April 1933 they passed laws regulating the slaughter of animals; one of their targets was kosher slaughter. In November the Tierschutzgesetzor animal protection law, was introduced, with Adolf Hitler announcing an end to animal cruelty: "Im neuen Reich darf es keine Tierquälerei mehr geben." ("In the new Reich, no more animal cruelty will be allowed.") It was followed in July 1934 by the Reichsjagdgesetzprohibiting hunting; in July 1935 by the Naturschutzgesetzenvironmental legislation; in November 1937 by a law regulating animal transport in cars; and in September 1938 by a similar law dealing with animals on trains.[71] Hitler was a vegetarian in the later years of his life; several members of his inner circle, including Rudolf Hess, Joseph Goebbels, and Heinrich Himmler, adopted some form of vegetarianism, though by most accounts their vegetarianism was not as strict as Hitler's.[72]
Increase in animal use[edit]
Despite the proliferation of animal protection legislation, animals still had no legal rights. Debbie Legge writes that existing legislation was very much tied to the idea of human interests, whether protecting human sensibilities by outlawing cruelty, or protecting property rights by making sure animals were not harmed. The over-exploitation of fishing stocks, for example, is viewed as harming the environment for people; the hunting of animals to extinction means that humans in the future will derive no enjoyment from them; poaching results in financial loss to the owner, and so on.[44]
Notwithstanding the interest in animal welfare of the previous century, the situation for animals arguably deteriorated in the 20th century, particularly after the Second World War. This was in part because of the increase in the numbers used in animal research—300 in the UK in 1875, 19,084 in 1903, and 2.8 million in 2005 (50–100 million worldwide), and a modern annual estimated range of 10 million to upwards of 100 million in the US[73]—but mostly because of the industrialization of farming, which saw billions of animals raised and killed for food on a scale considered impossible before the war.[74]
Development of direct action[edit]
In the early 1960s in England, support for animal rights began to coalesce around the issue of blood sports, particularly hunting deer, foxes, and otters using dogs, an aristocratic and middle-class English practice, stoutly defended in the name of protecting rural traditions. The psychologist Richard D. Ryder – who became involved with the animal rights movement in the late 1960s – writes that the new chair of the League Against Cruel Sports tried in 1963 to steer it away from confronting members of the hunt, which triggered the formation that year of a direct action breakaway group, the Hunt Saboteurs Association. This was set up by a journalist, John Prestige, who had witnessed a pregnant deer being chased into a village and killed by the Devon and Somerset Staghounds. The practice of sabotaging hunts (for example, by misleading the dogs with scents or horns) spread throughout south-east England, particularly around university towns, leading to violent confrontations when the huntsmen attacked the "sabs".[75]
The controversy spread to the RSPCA, which had arguably grown away from its radical roots to become a conservative group with charity status and royal patronage. It had failed to speak out against hunting, and indeed counted huntsmen among its members. As with the League Against Cruel Sports, this position gave rise to a splinter group, the RSPCA Reform Group, which sought to radicalize the organization, leading to chaotic meetings of the group's ruling Council, and successful (though short-lived) efforts to change it from within by electing to the Council members who would argue from an animal rights perspective, and force the RSPCA to address issues such as hunting, factory farming, and animal experimentation. Ryder himself was elected to the Council in 1971, and served as its chair from 1977 to 1979.[75]
Formation of the Oxford group[edit]
The same period saw writers and academics begin to speak out again in favor of animal rights. Ruth Harrison published Animal Machines (1964), an influential critique of factory farming, and on October 10, 1965, the novelist Brigid Brophy had an article, "The Rights of Animals", published in The Sunday Times.[60] She wrote:
The relationship of homo sapiens to the other animals is one of unremitting exploitation. We employ their work; we eat and wear them. We exploit them to serve our superstitions: whereas we used to sacrifice them to our gods and tear out their entrails in order to foresee the future, we now sacrifice them to science, and experiment on their entrails in the hope—or on the mere off chance—that we might thereby see a little more clearly into the present ... To us it seems incredible that the Greek philosophers should have scanned so deeply into right and wrong and yet never noticed the immorality of slavery. Perhaps 3000 years from now it will seem equally incredible that we do not notice the immorality of our own oppression of animals.[60]
Robert Garner writes that Harrison's book and Brophy's article led to an explosion of interest in the relationship between humans and nonhumans.[76] In particular, Brophy's article was discovered in or around 1969 by a group of postgraduate philosophy students at the University of Oxford, Roslind and Stanley Godlovitch (husband and wife from Canada), John Harris, and David Wood, now known as the Oxford Group. They decided to put together a symposium to discuss the theory of animal rights.[60]
Around the same time, Richard Ryder wrote several letters to The Daily Telegraph criticizing animal experimentation, based on incidents he had witnessed in laboratories. The letters, published in April and May 1969, were seen by Brigid Brophy, who put Ryder in touch with the Godlovitches and Harris. Ryder also started distributing pamphlets in Oxford protesting against experiments on animals; it was in one of these pamphlets in 1970 that he coined the term "speciesism" to describe the exclusion of nonhuman animals from the protections offered to humans.[77] He subsequently became a contributor to the Godlovitches' symposium, as did Harrison and Brophy, and it was published in 1971 as Animals, Men and Morals: An Inquiry into the Maltreatment of Non-humans.[78]
Publication of Animal Liberation[edit]
In 1970, over lunch in Oxford with fellow student Richard Keshen, a vegetarian, Australian philosopher Peter Singer came to believe that, by eating animals, he was engaging in the oppression of other species. Keshen introduced Singer to the Godlovitches, and in 1973 Singer reviewed their book for The New York Review of Books. In the review, he used the term "animal liberation", writing:
We are familiar with Black Liberation, Gay Liberation, and a variety of other movements. With Women's Liberation some thought we had come to the end of the road. Discrimination on the basis of sex, it has been said, is the last form of discrimination that is universally accepted and practiced without pretense ... But one should always be wary of talking of "the last remaining form of discrimination." ... Animals, Men and Morals is a manifesto for an Animal Liberation movement.[79]
On the strength of his review, The New York Review of Books took the unusual step of commissioning a book from Singer on the subject, published in 1975 as Animal Liberationnow one of the animal rights movement's canonical texts. Singer based his arguments on the principle of utilitarianism – the view, in its simplest form, that an act is right if it leads to the "greatest happiness of the greatest number", a phrase first used in 1776 by Jeremy Bentham.[79] He argued in favor of the equal consideration of interests, the position that there are no grounds to suppose that a violation of the basic interests of a human—for example, an interest in not suffering—is different in any morally significant way from a violation of the basic interests of a nonhuman.[80] Singer used the term "speciesism" in the book, citing Ryder, and it stuck, becoming an entry in the Oxford English Dictionary in 1989.[81]
The book's publication triggered a groundswell of scholarly interest in animal rights. Richard Ryder's Victims of Science: The Use of Animals in Research (1975) appeared, followed by Andrew Linzey's Animal Rights: A Christian Perspective (1976), and Stephen R. L. Clark's The Moral Status of Animals (1977). A Conference on Animal Rights was organized by Ryder and Linzey at Trinity College, Cambridge, in August 1977. This was followed by Mary Midgley's Beast And Man: The Roots of Human Nature (1978), then Animal Rights–A Symposium (1979), which included the papers delivered to the Cambridge conference.[76]
From 1982 onwards, a series of articles by Tom Regan led to his The Case for Animal Rights (1984), in which he argues that nonhuman animals are "subjects-of-a-life", and therefore possessors of moral rights, a work regarded as a key text in animal rights theory.[76] Regan wrote in 2001 that philosophers had written more about animal rights in the previous 20 years than in the 2,000 years before that.[82] Garner writes that Charles Magel's bibliography, Keyguide to Information Sources in Animal Rights (1989), contains 10 pages of philosophical material on animals up to 1970, but 13 pages between 1970 and 1989 alone.[83]
Founding of the Animal Liberation Front[edit]
In 1971, a law student, Ronnie Lee, formed a branch of the Hunt Saboteurs Association in Luton, later calling it the Band of Mercy after a 19th-century RSPCA youth group. The Band attacked hunters' vehicles by slashing tires and breaking windows, calling it "active compassion". In November 1973, they engaged in their first act of arson when they set fire to a Hoechst Pharmaceuticals research laboratory, claiming responsibility as a "nonviolent guerilla organization dedicated to the liberation of animals from all forms of cruelty and persecution at the hands of mankind."[84]
Lee and another activist were sentenced to three years in prison in 1974, paroled after 12 months. In 1976, Lee brought together the remaining Band of Mercy activists along with some fresh faces to start a leaderless resistance movement, calling it the Animal Liberation Front (ALF).[84] ALF activists see themselves as a modern Underground Railroad, passing animals removed from farms and laboratories to sympathetic veterinarians, safe houses and sanctuaries.[85] Some activists also engage in threats, intimidation, and arson, acts that have lost the movement sympathy in mainstream public opinion.[86]
The decentralized model of activism is frustrating for law enforcement organizations, who find the networks difficult to infiltrate, because they tend to be organized around friends.[87] In 2005, the US Department of Homeland Security indicated how seriously it takes the ALF when it included them in a list of domestic terrorist threats.[88] The tactics of some of the more determined ALF activists are anathema to many animal rights advocates, such as Singer, who regard the movement as something that should occupy the moral high ground. ALF activists respond to the criticism with the argument that, as Ingrid Newkirk puts it, "Thinkers may prepare revolutions, but bandits must carry them out."[89]
From the 1980s through to the early 2000s there was an increased level of violence by animal rights extremist groups directed at individuals and institutions associated with animal research. Activist groups involved included the Justice Department, the Animal Rights Militia and SHAC.[90]
Subcultures and Animal Rights[edit]
In the 1980s, animal rights became associated with punk subculture and ideologies, particularly straight edge hardcore punk in the United States[91][92] and anarcho-punk in the United Kingdom.[93] This association continues on into the 21st century, as evidenced by the prominence of vegan punk events such as Fluff Fest in Europe.[94]
Animal Rights International[edit]
Henry Spira (1927–1998), a former seaman and civil rights activist, became the most notable of the new animal advocates in the United States. A proponent of gradual change, he formed Animal Rights International in 1974, and introduced the idea of "reintegrative shaming", whereby a relationship is formed between a group of animal rights advocates and a corporation they see as misusing animals, with a view to obtaining concessions or halting a practice. It is a strategy that has been widely adopted, most notably by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.[95]
Spira's first campaign was in opposition to the American Museum of Natural History in 1976, where cats were being experimented on, research that he persuaded them to stop. His most notable achievement was in 1980, when he convinced the cosmetics company Revlon to stop using the Draize test, which involves toxicity tests on the skin or in the eyes of animals. He took out a full-page ad in several newspapers, featuring a rabbit with sticking plaster over the eyes, and the caption, "How many rabbits does Revlon blind for beauty's sake?" Revlon stopped using animals for cosmetics testing, donated money to help set up the Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing, and was followed by other leading cosmetics companies.[96] Revlon has since renewed testing on animals as it is unwilling to give up revenue from sales in China, where animal testing is required for cosmetics and other items. [[97]]
21st century: Developments[edit]
In 1999, New Zealand passed a new Animal Welfare Act that had the effect of banning experiments on "non-human hominids".[98]
Also in 1999, Public Law 106-152 (Title 18, Section 48) was put into action in the United States. This law makes it a felony to create, sell, or possess videos showing animal cruelty with the intention of profiting financially from them.[99]
In 2005, the Austrian parliament banned experiments on apes, unless they are performed in the interests of the individual ape.[98] Also in Austria, the Supreme Court ruled in January 2008 that a chimpanzee (called Matthew Hiasl Pan by those advocating for his personhood) was not a person, after the Association Against Animal Factories sought personhood status for him because his custodians had gone bankrupt. The chimpanzee had been captured as a baby in Sierra Leone in 1982, then smuggled to Austria to be used in pharmaceutical experiments, but was discovered by customs officials when he arrived in the country, and was taken to a shelter instead. He was kept there for 25 years, until the group that ran the shelter went bankrupt in 2007. Donors offered to help him, but under Austrian law only a person can receive personal gifts, so any money sent to support him would be lost to the shelter's bankruptcy. The Association appealed the ruling to the European Court of Human Rights. The lawyer proposing the chimpanzee's personhood asked the court to appoint a legal guardian for him and to grant him four rights: the right to life, limited freedom of movement, personal safety, and the right to claim property.[100]
In June 2008, a committee of Spain's national legislature became the first to vote for a resolution to extend limited rights to nonhuman primates. The parliamentary Environment Committee recommended giving chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans the right not to be used in medical experiments or in circuses, and recommended making it illegal to kill apes, except in self-defense, based upon the rights recommended by the Great Ape Project.[101] The committee's proposal has not yet been enacted into law.[102]
From 2009 onwards, several countries outlawed the use of some or all animals in circuses, starting with Bolivia, and followed by several countries in Europe, Scandinavia, the Middle East, and Singapore.[103]
In 2010, the regional government in Catalonia passed a motion to outlaw bull fighting, the first such ban in Spain.[104] In 2011, PETA sued SeaWorld over the captivity of five orcas in San Diego and Orlando, arguing that the whales were being treated as slaves. It was the first time the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which outlaws slavery and involuntary servitude, was cited in court to protect nonhuman rights. A federal judge dismissed the case in February 2012.[105]
Petitions for Habeas Corpus[edit]
In 2015, the Nonhuman Rights Project (NhPR) filed three lawsuits in New York State on behalf of four captive chimpanzees, demanding that the courts grant them the right to bodily liberty via the writ of Habeas Corpus and to immediately send them to a sanctuary affiliated with the North American Primate Sanctuary Alliance.[106] All of the petitions were denied. In the case involving the chimpanzees Hercules and Leo, Justice Barbra Jaffe did not immediately dismiss the filing and instead ordered a hearing requiring the chimpanzee owner to show why the chimpanzees should be not be released and transferred to the sanctuary.[107] Following the hearing, Justice Jaffe issued an order denying Hercules and Leo's petition.
Even though the petition was denied, NhRP interpreted Justice Jeffe's decision as a victory. In its press release it emphasized the fact that Justice Jeffe agreed with NhRP when finding that "'persons' are not restricted to human beings, and that who is a 'person' is not a question of biology, but of public policy and principle" and also stating that "Efforts to extend legal rights to chimpanzees are thus understandable; some day they may even succeed."[108]
Indian subcontinent[edit]
Religions[edit]
Robert Garner writes that both Hindu and Buddhist societies abandoned animal sacrifice and embraced vegetarianism from the 3rd century BCE. Several kings in India built hospitals for animals, and the emperor Ashoka (304–232 BCE) issued orders against hunting and animal slaughter, in line with ahimsathe doctrine of non-violence. Garner writes that Jainism took this idea further. Jains believe that no living creature should be harmed, and they are known to clear paths in front of them by sweeping them to protect any insect life that may be present.[109]
In 2014, the Jain pilgrimage destination of Palitana City in Indian state of Gujarat became the first city in the world to be legally vegetarian. It has outlawed, or made illegal, the buying and selling of meat, fish and eggs, and also related jobs or work, such as fishing and penning 'food animals'.[110][111][112][113]
Legal actions in the 21st century[edit]
Paul Waldau writes that, in 2000, the High Court in Kerala used the language of "rights" in relation to circus animals, ruling that they are "beings entitled to dignified existence" under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The ruling said that if human beings are entitled to these rights, animals should be too. The court went beyond the requirements of the Constitution that all living beings should be shown compassion, and said: "It is not only our fundamental duty to show compassion to our animal friends, but also to recognize and protect their rights." Waldau writes that other courts in India and one court in Sri Lanka have used similar language.[98]
In 2012, the Indian government issued a ban on the use of live animals in education and much research.[114]
In religion[edit]
For some the basis of animal rights is in religion or animal worship (or in general nature worship), with some religions banning killing of any animal; One of the most important sanctions of the Buddhist faith is the concept of ahimsa, or refraining from the destruction of life. According to Buddhist belief, humans do not deserve preferential treatment over other living beings. See also in section above.
In contrast, in other religions, animals can be unclean, with in general allowing eating all except for these; "The Torah allows eating certain kinds of "winged swarming things" (i.e. insects) while prohibiting others".
Islam[edit]
Animal rights were recognized early by the Sharia (Islamic law). This recognition is based on both the Qur'an and the Hadith. In the Qur'an, there are 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 the rights of animals.[115] It is a distinctive characteristic of the Shariah that all animals have legal rights. Othman Llewellyn even argues that Shariah has mechanisms for the full repair of injuries suffered by non-human creatures including their representation in court, assessment of injuries and awarding of relief to them.[citation needed] The classical Muslim jurist 'Izz ad-Din ibn 'Abd as-Salam, who flourished during the thirteenth century, formulated the following statement of animal rights:
The rights of livestock and animals upon man: these are that he spend on them the provision that their kinds require, even if they have aged or sickened such that no benefit comes from them; that he not burden them beyond what they can bear; that he not put them together with anything by which they would be injured, whether of their own kind or other species, and whether by breaking their bones or butting or wounding; that he slaughters them with kindness when he slaughters them, and neither flay their skins nor break their bones until their bodies have become cold and their lives have passed away; that he not slaughter their young within their sight, but that he isolate them; that he makes comfortable their resting places and watering places; that he puts their males and females together during their mating seasons; that he not discard those which he takes as game; and neither shoots them with anything that breaks their bones nor brings about their destruction by any means that renders their meat unlawful to eat.[116]
On the other hand, animal sacrifice is a prominent feature of Eid al-Adha observances.[117]
Philosophical and legal approaches[edit]
Overview[edit]
The two main philosophical approaches to animal rights 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.[118]
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.[119]
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.[120] 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.[121] 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.[122]Mark Rowlands has proposed a contractarian approach.[123]
Utilitarianism[edit]
| “ | They talk about this thing in the head; what do they call it? ["Intellect," whispered someone nearby.] That's it. What's that got to do with women's rights or Negroes' rights? If my cup won't hold but a pint and yours holds a quart, wouldn't you be mean not to let me have my little half-measure full? — Sojourner Truth[124] | ” |
Nussbaum (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.[125] 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.[126]
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.[127] 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."[80]
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.[128]
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' 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.[129]
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.[130] 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.[131]
Subjects-of-a-life[edit]
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.[132] 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".[132]
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.[132] 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.[132]
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.[133]
Abolitionism[edit]
Gary 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.[134]
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.[135] 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.[136]
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.[137]
Contractarianism[edit]
Mark 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.[123]
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.[123]
Prima facie rights theory[edit]
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 Ethics: A Pluralistic Approach to Moral TheoryLawrence 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".[138] The idea that nonhuman animals are worthy of prima facie rights is to say that, in a sense, animals do have rights. However, these rights 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.[139]
In sum, Garry suggests that humans have obligations to nonhuman animals; however, animals do not, and ought not to, have uninfringible rights against humans.
Feminism and animal rights[edit]
Women have played a central role in animal advocacy since the 19th century.[140] The anti-vivisection movement in the 19th and early 20th century in England and the United States was largely run by women, including Francis Power Cobbe, Anna Kingsford, Lizzy Lind af Hageby and Caroline Earle White (1833–1916).[141] 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.[142]
The modern animal advocacy movement has a similar representation of women, though Garner (2005) writes that 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.[143] 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; 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.[140]Lori Gruen writes that women and animals serve the same symbolic function in a patriarchal society: both are "the used"; the dominated, submissive "Other".[144] 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), claiming that Wollstonecraft's arguments for women's rights could be applied equally to animals, a position he intended as reductio ad absurdum.[145]
Transhumanism[edit]
Some transhumanists argue for animal rights, liberation, and "uplift" of animal consciousness into machines.[146] 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).[147]
Critics[edit]
R. G. Frey[edit]
R. G. Frey, professor of philosophy at Bowling Green State University, is a preference utilitarian, as is Singer, but reaches a very different conclusion, arguing in Interests and Rights (1980) that animals have no interests for the utilitarian to take into account. 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."[148]
Carl Cohen[edit]
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, [they] ... 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.[149]
Richard Posner[edit]
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.[151] 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."[150]
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.[150]
Roger Scruton[edit]
Roger Scruton, the British philosopher, argues that rights imply obligations. Every legal privilege, he writes, imposes a burden on the one who does not possess that privilege: that is, "your right may be my duty." Scruton therefore regards 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 argues, distinctive to the human condition, and it makes no sense to spread them beyond our own species.[7]
He accuses 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 argues. 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 argues, a fantasy, a world of escape.[7]
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."[7]
Continuity between humans and nonhuman animals[edit]
Evolutionary studies have provided explanations of altruistic behaviours in humans and nonhuman animals, and suggest similarities between humans and some nonhumans.[152] Scientists such as Jane Goodall and Richard Dawkins believe in the capacity of nonhuman great apes, humans' closest relatives, to possess rationality and self-awareness.[153]
In 2010, research led by psychologist Diana Reiss and zoologist Lori Marino was presented to a conference in San Diego, suggesting that dolphins are second in intelligence only to human beings, and concluded that they should be regarded as nonhuman persons. Marino used MRI scans to compare the dolphin and primate brain; she said the scans indicated there was "psychological continuity" between dolphins and humans. Reiss's research suggested that dolphins are able to solve complex problems, use tools, and pass the mirror test, using a mirror to inspect parts of their bodies.[154][155]
Studies have established links between interpersonal violence and animal cruelty.[156][157]
In Christian theology, the founder of the Methodist movement, John Wesley, was a Christian vegetarian and maintained "that animals had immortal souls and that there were considerable similarities between human and non-human animals."[158]
Public attitudes[edit]
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.[159] 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 companion animals may be a factor in people's attitudes.[160]
Women are more likely to empathize with the cause of animal rights than men.[160][161] A 1996 study of adolescents by Linda Pifer 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.[162]
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.[163][164]
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."[160][165]
Animal welfare and rights by country[edit]
Summary table[edit]
Individual countries[edit]
See also[edit]
References[edit]
- ^ Beauchamp (2011b), p. 200.
- ^ Kumar, Satish (September 2002). "You are, therefore I am: A declaration of dependence".
- ^ Taylor (2009), pp. 8, 19–20; Rowlands (1998), p. 31ff.
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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).
- 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", The New York Times.
- ^ a b c d Scruton, Roger. "Animal Rights", City Journalsummer 2000.
- ^ 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". Tissue Engineering Part C Methods. 23 (12): 850–862. doi:10.1089/ten.TEC.2017.0189. PMID 28756735.
- ^ Garner (2005), pp. 11, 16.
- ^ Singer (2000), pp. 151–156.
- ^ Martin, Gus (15 June 2011). The SAGE Encyclopedia of Terrorism, Second Edition. SALBEI. ISBN 9781412980166 – via Google Books.
- ^ a b c Sorabji (1993), p. 12ff.; Wise (2007).
- ^ Francione (1995), p. 36.
- ^ a b Rollin, Bernard E. Animal Rights and Human Morality. Prometheus-Bücher. p. 117. ISBN 978-1-61592-211-6.
- ^ Phelps, Norm (2002). Animal Rights According to the Bible. Lantern Books. p. 70. ISBN 978-1-59056-009-9.
The Bible's most important reference to the sentence and will of nonhuman animals is found in Deuteronomy 25:4, which became the scriptural foundation of the rabbinical doctrine of tsar ba'ale Chayim"the suffering of the living," which makes relieving the suffering of animals a religious duty for Jews. "You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing." The point of muzzling the ox was to keep him from eating any of the grain that he was threshing. The point of the commandment was the cruelty of forcing an animal to work for hours at a time with his face only inches from delicious food while not allowing him to eat any of it. From time immemorial, Jew have taken great pride in the care they provide their animals.
- ^ Steiner (2005), p. 47; Taylor (2009), p. 37.
- ^ Taylor (2009), p. 37.
- ^ Sorabji (1993) p. 45 ff.
- ^ "Plutarch • Life of Cato the Elder". penelope.uchicago.edu.
- ^ Beauchamp (2011a), pp. 4–5.
- ^ The Statutes at Large. Dublin, 1786, cited in Ryder (2000), p. 49.
- ^ a b Francione 1996, p. 7.
- ^ Nash (1989), p. 19.
- ^ Kete (2002), p. 19 ff.
- ^ Harrison (1992).
- ^ a b Midgley, Mary (May 24, 1999-2000). [1]The New Statesman.
- ^ Cottingham (1995), pp. 188–192.
- ^ "Bêtes, Dictionnaire Philosophique.
- ^ Locke (1693).
- ^ Waldau (2001), p. 9.
- ^ Kant (1785), part II, paras 16 and 17.
- ^ Rousseau (1754), quoted in Midgley (1984), p. 62.
- ^ Bentham (1781), Part III.
- ^ Benthall (2007), p. 1.
- ^ Bentham (1789), quoted in Garner (2005), pp. 12—13.
- ^ a b c Legge and Brooman (1997), p. 40.
- ^ a b Phelps (2007), pp. 96–98.
- Speeches in Parliament, of the Right Honourable William Windham. Volume I. Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown (1812), pp. 303, 340–356.
- ^ Cruelty to Animals: The Speech of Lord Erskine in the House of Peers (London: Richard Phillips, 1809) p 2 Italics in original speech. Also see John Hostettler, Thomas Erskine and Trial By Jury (Hook, Hampshire: Waterside Press, 2010) pp 197-199. ISBN 978-1-904380-59-7
- ^ Cruelty to Animals: The Speech of Lord Erskinesee the Preamble pp 6-7, other theological allusions pp 3, 8-9, 25 & 26
- ^ a b c Anonymous (1972). "The History of the RSPCA", reproduced by the Animal Legal and Historical Center, Michigan State University College of Law. Retrieved March 25, 2008.
- ^ Legge and Brooman (1997), p. 41.
- ^ a b Phelps 2007, pp. 98–100.
- ^ McCormick, John. Bullfighting: Art, Technique and Spanish Society. Transaction Publishers, 1999, p. 211.
- ^ a b Legge and Brooman (1997), p. 50.
- ^ "To Correspondents" The Kaleidoscope6 March 1821 p 288. Also see The Monthly Magazine Vol. 51 April 1, 1821 p 3."The Brute Species". "Notice" in Morning Post17 February 1821, p 3. Similarly see "Cruelty to Animals" The Sporting MagazineVol. VIII New Series No. XLIII (April 1821), p 33.
- ^ See Kathryn Shevelow, For the Love of Animals: The Rise of the Animal Protection Movement (New York: Henry Holt, 2008), 268; Arthur W. Moss, Valiant Crusade: The History of the RSPCA (London: Cassell, 1961), 22.
- ^ Legge and Brooman 1997, p. 47.
- ^ Taylor (2009), p. 62.
- ^ Nash 1989, p. 137.
- ^ a b Schopenhauer, Arthur. On the Basis of Morality. This edition Hackett Publishing, 1998, p. 96.
- ^ a b Phelps 2007, p. 153–154.
- Schopenhauer wrote in The Basis of Morality: "It is asserted that beasts have no rights ... that 'there are no duties to be fulfilled towards animals.' Such a view is one of revolting coarseness, a barbarism of the West, whose source is Judaism." A few passages later, he called the idea that animals exist for human benefit a "Jewish stence." See Phelps, op cit.
- ^ Schopenhauer, Arthur. The World as Will and Idea Vol.I. The Project Gutenberg, 2011. p. 477.
- ^ Schopenhauer, Arthur. Parerga & Paralipomena Vol. II. Cambridge University Press. pp. 144, 338.
- ^ Garner (2005), p. 12; Mill (1874) Archived 2012-08-05 at the Wayback Machine.
- ^ a b c Rachels (2009), pp. 124–126; Beauchamp (2009), pp. 248–249.
- ^ Darwin (1837), quoted in Redclift (2010), p. 199.
- ^ "Petition from Citizens of Ashtabula County, Ohio for a Constitutional Amendment that Representation in Congress be Uniform throughout the Country". National Archives Catalog. 1844. Retrieved July 29, 2016.
- ^ "The ASPCA–Pioneers in Animal Welfare - Advocacy for Animals".
- ^ Rudacille (2000), pp. 31, 46.
- ^ a b c d Ryder (2000), pp. 5–6.
- ^ Animal Rights: A Historical Anthology. By Andrew Linzey, Paul A. B. Clarke
- ^ The Selected Writings of Friedrich Nietzsche. ISBN 978-1-60459-332-7 Wilder Publications April 21, 2008.
- ^ "Posthuman Destinies". sciy.org.
- ^ Taylor (2009), p. 62.
- ^ a b c Salt 1894, chapter 1. Salt cited Spencer's definition of rights: "Every man is free to do that which he wills, provided he infringes not the equal liberty of any other man ... Whoever admits that each man must have a certain restricted freedom, asserts that it is right he should have this restricted freedom ... And hence the several particular freedoms deducible may fitly be called, as they commonly are called, his rights."
- ^ a b Mason (1997).
- ^ Lansbury (1985), pp. 152–169; Kean (1998), pp. 142–143.
- ^ a b Salt (1880) Archived 2012-06-16 at the Wayback Machine, p. 7.
- ^ Leneman (1999)
- ^ Arluke and Sax (1992).
- ^ Sax (2000) p. 114.
- ^ Proctor (1999), pp. 135–137; Sax (2000), pp. 35, 114.
- ^ "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain, 2005", Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
- "The Ethics of research involving animals" Archived June 25, 2008, at the Wayback Machine, Nuffield Council on Bioethics, section 1.6.
- "The history of the NAVS", National Anti-Vivisection Society.
- "Monument to the Little Brown Dog, Battersea Park" Archived December 6, 2008, at the Wayback Machine, Public Monument and Sculpture Association's National Recording Project.
- Singer (1990), p. 37, citing the US Congress Office of Technology Assessment's Alternatives to Animal Use in Research, Testing, and Education1986, p. 64.
- ^ Ten billion animals are now killed for food every year in the US alone; see Williams and DeMello (2007), p. 73.
- ^ a b Ryder (2000), p. 167ff.
- ^ a b c Garner (2004), p. 3ff.
- ^ Waldau (2001), pp. 5, 23–29.
- ^ Godlovitch, Godlovitch, and Harris (1971); see the Introduction for the reference to the symposium.
- ^ a b Singer (April 5, 1973).
- Singer (1990), pp. xiv–xv.
- Also see "Food for Thought", letter from David Rosinger and reply from Peter Singer, The New York Review of BooksVolume 20, Number 10, June 14, 1973."Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2010-02-24. Retrieved 2008-03-26.CS1 maint: Archived copy as title (link) CS1 maint: BOT: original-url status unknown (link)
- ^ a b Singer 1990, p. 5.
- ^ Singer (1990), p. 269, footnote 4.
- ^ Regan (2001), p. 67.
- ^ Garner (2004), p. 2
- ^ a b Molland (2004), pp. 70–74; Monaghan (2000), pp. 160–161.
- ^ Best (2004), pp. 23–24.
- ^ Singer (1998), pp. 151–152.
- ^ Ben Gunn, former Chief Constable, Cambridge Constabulary, interviewed for "It Could Happen to You," True Spies, BBC Two, November 10, 2002.
- ^ Rood, Justin. "Animal Rights Groups and Ecology Militants Make DHS Terrorist List, Right-Wing Vigilantes Omitted", Congressional QuarterlyMarch 25, 2005.
- ^ Newkirk (2004), p. 341./
- ^ Holder, T. (2014) - "Standing Up for Science", EMBO Reports, Volume 15, Issue 6, pages 625–630, June 2014
- ^ Helton, Jesse J.; Staudenmeier, William J. (2002). "Re-imagining being 'straight' in straight edge". Contemporary Drug Problems. 29 (2): 465. ISSN 0091-4509.
- ^ Wood, Robert T. (1999). "Nailed to the X: A Lyrical History of Straightedge". Journal of Youth Studies. 2 (2): 133–151. doi:10.1080/13676261.1999.10593032.
- ^ Tilbürger, Len; Kale, Chris P (2014). ""Nailing Descartes to the Wall": Animal Rights, Veganism and Punk Culture". Active Distribution.
- ^ Kuhn, Gabriel (2010). Sober Living for the Revolution: Hardcore Punk, Straight Edge, and Radical Politics. PM Press. p. 137. ISBN 978-1604860511. Retrieved 7 October 2017.
- ^ Francione and Garner (2010), p. 1ff.
- ^ Feder, Barnaby J. (November 26, 1889). "Pressuring Perdue", The New York Times.
- Also see Singer (1998), and Singer (2003).
- ^ "Why PETA Is Seriously Ticked Off at Revlon—and You Should Be, Too". 7 June 2013.
- ^ a b c Waldau (2011), p. 108.
- ^ "Stopping Crush Videos". pet-abuse.com.
- ^ It's official: In Austria, a chimp is not a person, Associated Press, January 15, 2008.
- ^ Waldau (2011), p. 108.
- McNeil, Donald G. (July 13, 2008). When Human Rights Extend to Nonhumans, The New York Times.
- Roberts, Martin (June 25, 2008). Spanish parliament to extend rights to apes, Reuters.
- Glendinning, Lee (July 18, 2008). Spanish parliament approves 'human rights' for apes The GuardianJune 26, 2008
- Singer, Peter (July 18, 2008). "Of great apes and men", The Guardian.
- Time magazine (July 18, 2008). In Spain, Human rights for Apes.
- ^ "IX Legislatura: Serie D: General 161/000099", Boletín Oficial de las Cortes Generales, Congreso de los Diputados, 23 May 2008, p. 22. Retrieved March 3, 2010.
- ^ Kelch (2011), p. 216; Waldau (2011), p. 108.
- ^ BBC News (July 28, 2010). "Catalonia bans bullfighting in landmark Spain vote".
- ^ Perry, Tony (February 7, 2011). "PETA's bid to free SeaWorld orcas may not get far", Los Angeles Times.
- ^ "Press Release re. NhRP Lawsuit, Dec. 2nd 2013 : The Nonhuman Rights Project". 2013-12-02. Archived from the original on December 22, 2015. Retrieved September 10, 2016.
- ^ "Judge Recognizes Two Chimpanzees as Legal Persons, Grants them Writ of Habeas Corpus : The Nonhuman Rights Project". Non Human Rights Project. 2015-04-20. Archived from the original on September 9, 2016. Retrieved December 10, 2015.
- ^ "That's One Small Step for a Judge, One Giant Leap for the Nonhuman Rights Project : The Nonhuman Rights Project". 2015-08-04. Archived from the original on May 12, 2016. Retrieved December 11, 2015.
- ^ Garner (2005), pp. 21–22.
- ^ "Culture / society | Worldcrunch - Real news. True sources. Seriously international".
- ^ "In India, The World's First Vegetarian City". IndiaDivine.org. 2015-03-07. Retrieved 2017-03-18.
- ^ "Jain monks want a ban on the sale of non-vegetarian food". The Independent. 2014-07-06. Retrieved 2017-03-18.
- ^ van Popering, Ruben (2015). Jain Vegetarian Laws in the City of Palitana : Indefensible Legal Enforcement or Praiseworthy Progressive Moralism?. Linköping University, Department of Culture and Communication, Centre for Applied Ethics.
- ^ "Govt bans use of live animals for education, research". The Times of India.
- ^ "BBC - Religions - Islam: Animals". bbc.co.uk.
- ^ 'Abd as-Salam, 'Izz ad-Din. Qawaa'id AlAhkaam fi Masaalih AlAnaam. Cairo: AlMaktaba AlTijaariya AlKubra. p. 141.
- ^ "Bakra Eid: The cost of sacrifice". Asian Correspondent. November 16, 2010. Retrieved December 28, 2011.
- ^ Craig (1988).
- ^ Nussbaum (2006), pp. 388ff, 393ff; also see Nussbaum (2004), p. 299ff.
- ^ Weir (2009): see Clark (1977); Rollin (1981); Midgley (1984).
- ^ Vallentyne (2005); Vallentyne (2007).
- ^ Rowlands (2009), p. 98ff; Hursthouse (2000a); Hursthouse (2000b), p. 146ff.
- ^ a b c Rowlands (1998), p. 118ff, particularly pp. 147–152.
- ^ Singer (1990), p. 6.
- ^ Nussbaum (2004), p. 302.
- ^ For a discussion of preference utilitarianism, see Singer (2011), pp. 14ff, 94ff.
- ^ Singer (1990), pp. 7–8.
- ^ Singer (1990), p. 4.
- ^ Rollin (1989), pp. xii, pp. 117–118; Rollin (2007).
- ^ Singer (1990), pp. 10–17, citing Stamp Dawkins (1980), Walker (1983), and Griffin (1984); Garner (2005), pp. 13–14.
- ^ Singer (1990) p. 12ff.
- ^ a b c d Regan (1983), p. 243.
- ^ Regan (1983).
- ^ Francione (1990), pp. 4, 17ff.
- ^ Francione (1995), pp. 4–5.
- ^ Francione (1995), p. 208ff.
- ^ Francione (1996), p. 32ff
- ^ 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
- ^ a b Lansbury (1985); Adams (1990); Donovan (1993); Gruen (1993); Adams (1994); Adams and Donovan (1995); Adams (2004); MacKinnon (2004).
- ^ Kean (1995).
- ^ Garner (2005), p. 141, citing Elston (1990), p. 276.
- ^ Garner (2005), pp. 142–143.
- ^ Gruen (1993), p. 60ff.
- ^ Singer (1990), p. 1.
- ^ George Dvorsky. "The Ethics of Animal Enhancement".
- ^ Evans, Woody (2015). "Posthuman Rights: Dimensions of Transhuman Worlds". Teknokultura. 12 (2). doi:10.5209/rev_TK.2015.v12.n2.49072. Retrieved December 5, 2016.
- ^ Frey (1989), p. 40.
- ^ Spr07/cohen.pdf Cohen (1986)[permanent dead link].
- ^ a b c Posner (June 15, 2001); Posner-Singer debate in full, courtesy link on utilitarian.net.
- ^ Singer (June 15, 2001).
- ^ Lawrence (2004) Animal Acts: Configuring the Human in Western History. Journal of Popular Culture, 37(3), 555
- ^ The Great Ape Project: Equality beyond humanity. 1993. Fourth Estate publishing, London, England.
- ^ Reiss, D. (2011). "Dolphin Research: Educating the Public". Science. 332 (6037): 1501. doi:10.1126/science.332.6037.1501-b. PMID 21700853.
- ^ Leake, Jonathan (January 3, 2010). "Scientists say dolphins should be treated as 'non-human persons'", The Sunday Times.
- ^ Frank R. Ascione, Phil Arkow Child abuse, domestic violence, and animal abuse: linking the circles of compassion for prevention and intervention ISBN 1-55753-142-0
- ^ Randall Lockwood, Frank R. Ascione. Cruelty to Animals and Interpersonal Violence. Purdue University Press 1998
- ^ Preece, Rod (1 July 2009). Sins of the Flesh: A History of Ethical Vegetarian Thought. UBC Press. p. 239. ISBN 9780774858496.
- ^ Herzog, Harold; Dorr, Lorna (2000) "Electronically Available Surveys of Attitudes Toward Animals", Society & Animals 10:2.
- ^ a b c Apostol, L., Rebega, O.L. & Miclea, M. (2013). "Psychological and Socio-Demographic Predictors of Attitudes towards Animals". Social and Behavioural Sciences78, pages 521–525.
- ^ Herzog, Harold. (2007). "Gender Differences in Human-Animal Interactions: A Review". Anthrozoos: A Multidisciplinary Journal of The Interactions of People & Animals. 20:1. Pages 7–21.
- ^ Pifer, Linda. (1996). "Exploring the Gender Gap in Young Adults' Attitudes about Animal Research". Society and Animals. 4:1. Pages 37–52.
- ^ 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 Archived 2013-06-20 at the Wayback Machine", Society and Animals 15, pages 353–363.
- ^ Galvin, Shelley L.; Herzog Jr., Harold A. (1992) "Ethical Ideology, Animal Rights Activism, And Attitudes Toward The Treatment Of Animals." Ethics & Behavior 2.3. Pages 141–149.
- ^ An attitude survey of animal rights activists. Psychological Science. 2(3), 194–196
- ^ "Algeria: country profile". Worldanimalprotection.org. Retrieved 2019-01-29.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i "ANIMAL WELFARE IN OIE MEMBER COUNTRIES & TERRITORIES IN THE SADC REGION" (PDF). Retrieved 2019-01-29.
- ^ "Austria: country profile". Worldanimalprotection.org. Retrieved 2019-01-29.
- ^ "Azerbaijan: country profile". Worldanimalprotection.org. Retrieved 2019-01-29.
- ^ "Belarus: country profile". Worldanimalprotection.org. Retrieved 2019-01-29.
- ^ "Canada: country profile". Worldanimalprotection.org. Retrieved 2019-01-29.
- ^ "Chile: country profile". Worldanimalprotection.org. Retrieved 2019-01-29.
- ^ "China: country profile". Worldanimalprotection.org. Retrieved 2019-01-29.
- ^ "Denmark: country profile". Worldanimalprotection.org. Retrieved 2019-01-29.
- ^ "Egypt: country profile". Worldanimalprotection.org. Retrieved 2019-01-29.
- ^ Penal Code of Eritrea, 2015
- ^ "Ethiopia: country profile". Worldanimalprotection.org. Retrieved 2019-01-29.
- ^ "France: country profile". Worldanimalprotection.org. Retrieved 2019-01-29.
- ^ "Germany: country profile". Worldanimalprotection.org. Retrieved 2019-01-29.
- ^ "India: country profile". Worldanimalprotection.org. Retrieved 2019-01-29.
- ^ "Iran: country profile". Worldanimalprotection.org. Retrieved 2019-01-29.
- ^ "Italy: country profile". Worldanimalprotection.org. Retrieved 2019-01-29.
- ^ "Japan: country profile". Worldanimalprotection.org. Retrieved 2019-01-29.
- ^ Penal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan
- ^ "Kenya: country profile". Worldanimalprotection.org. Retrieved 2019-01-29.
- ^ "Malaysia: country profile". Worldanimalprotection.org. Retrieved 2019-01-29.
- ^ Mongolia update Legislative Developments
- ^ "Morocco: country profile". Worldanimalprotection.org. Retrieved 2019-01-29.
- ^ "New Zealand: country profile". Worldanimalprotection.org. Retrieved 2019-01-29.
- ^ "Niger: country profile". Worldanimalprotection.org. Retrieved 2019-01-29.
- ^ The Criminal Law of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (2009
- ^ "Pakistan: country profile". Worldanimalprotection.org. Retrieved 2019-01-29.
- ^ "Poland: country profile". Worldanimalprotection.org. Retrieved 2019-01-29.
- ^ "Russia: country profile". Worldanimalprotection.org. Retrieved 2019-01-29.
- ^ "Sweden: country profile". Worldanimalprotection.org. Retrieved 2019-01-29.
- ^ "Switzerland: country profile". Worldanimalprotection.org. Retrieved 2019-01-29.
- ^ "Tanzania: country profile". Worldanimalprotection.org. Retrieved 2019-01-29.
- ^ "Ukraine: count ry profile". Worldanimalprotection.org. Retrieved 2019-01-29.
- ^ "United Kingdom: country profile". Worldanimalprotection.org. Retrieved 2019-01-29.
- ^ "United States: country profile". Worldanimalprotection.org. Retrieved 2019-01-29.
- ^ "Vietnam: country profile". Worldanimalprotection.org. Retrieved 2019-01-29.
Bibliography[edit]
- 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.
- ___________ and Josephine, Donovan (eds.) (1995). Animals and Women: Feminist Theoretical Explorations. Duke University Press.
- ___________ (2004). The Pornography of Meat. Continuum.
- Arluke, Arnold and Sax, Boria (1992). "Understanding Nazi Animal Protection and the Holocaust", Anthrozoos: A Multidisciplinary Journal of The Interactions of People & AnimalsVolume 5, Number 1, 1992, pp. 6–31(26).
- Benthall, Jonathan (2007). "Animal liberation and rights", Anthropology Todayvolume 23, issue 2, April.
- Bentham, Jeremy (1781). Principles of Penal Law.
- Beauchamp, Tom (2009). "The Moral Standing of Animals", in Marc Bekoff. Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare. Greenwood.
- ___________ (2011a). "Introduction," in Tom Beauchamp and R.G. Frey (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics. Oxford University Press.
- ___________ (2011b). "Rights Theory and Animal Rights," in Beauchamp and Frey, op cit.
- Clark, Stephen R. L. (1977). The Moral Status of Animals. Oxford University Press.
- Cohen, Carl (1986). "The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research", New England Journal of Medicinevol. 315, issue 14, October, pp. 865–870.
- Cohen, Carl and Regan, Tom (2001). The Animal Rights Debate. Rowman & Littlefield.
- Cottingham, John (1995). "Descartes, René" in Honderich, Ted. (ed.) The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford University Press.
- Craig, Edward (ed.) (1988). "Deontological Ethics" and "Consequentalism," Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- 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.
- ___________ (1995). Animals, Property, and the Law. Temple University Press.
- ___________ (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.
- ___________ (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.
- ___________ (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.
- Godlovitch, Roslind; Godlovitch Stanley; and Harris John (1971). Animals, Men and Morals: An Inquiry into the Maltreatment of Non-humans. Victor Gollancz.
- Harrison, Peter (1992). "Descartes on Animals", The Philosophical QuarterlyVol. 42, No. 167, April, pp. 219–227.
- Horta, Oscar (2010). "What Is Speciesism?", The Journal of Environmental and Agricultural EthicsVol. 23, No. 3, June, pp. 243–266.
- Hursthouse, Rosalind (2000a). On Virtue Ethics. Oxford University Press.
- ___________ (2000b). Ethics, Humans and Other Animals. Routledge.
- Kant, Immanuel (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals.
- Kean, Hilda (1998). Animal Rights: Political and Social Change in Britain since 1800. Reaktion Books.
- __________(1995). "The 'Smooth Cool Men of Science': The Feminist and Socialist Response to Vivisection", History Workshop JournalNo. 40 (Autumn), pp. 16–38.
- Kelch, Thomas G. (2011).KelchGlobalization and Animal Law. Kluwer Law International.
- Kete, Kathleen (2002). "Animals and Ideology: The Politics of Animal Protection in Europe," in Nigel Rothfels (ed.). Representing Animals. Indiana University Press.
- 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.
- Leneman, Leah (1999). "No Animal Food: The Road to Veganism in Britain, 1909–1944," Society and Animals7, 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.
- 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", Encyclopædia Britannica's Advocacy for Animals.
- Najafi, Sina and Kete, Kathleen (2001). "Beastly Agendas: An Interview with Kathleen Kete", Cabinetissue 4, Fall.
- 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.
- 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.
- ___________ (2006). Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership. Belknap Press.
- Phelps, Norm (2007). The Longest Struggle: Animal Advocacy from Pythagoras to PETA. Lantern Books.
- Posner, Richard and Singer, Peter (June 15, 2001). Posner-Singer debate, Slate.
- ___________ (2004). "Animal rights" in Sunstein and Nussbaum, op cit.
- Proctor, Robert N. (1999). The Nazi War on Cancer. Princeton University Press.
- 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.
- ___________ (2001). Defending Animal Rights. University of Illinois Press.
- Rollin, Bernard (1981). Animal Rights and Human Morality. Prometheus Books.
- ___________ (1989). The Unheeded Cry: Animal Consciousness, Animal Pain, and Science. New York: Oxford University Press.
- ___________ (2007). "Animal research: a moral science", NatureEMBO Reports 8, 6, pp. 521–525.
- Rousseau, Jean-Jacques (1754). Discourse on Inequality.
- Rowlands, Mark (2009) [1998]. Animal Rights. A Defense. Palgrave Macmillan.
- Rudacille, Deborah (2000). The Scalpel and the Butterfly. University of California Press.
- Ryder, Richard (2000) [1989]. Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes Towards Speciesism. Berg.
- Salt, Henry Stephens (1880). A Plea for Vegetarianism and other essays.
- ___________ (1894). Animals' Rights: Considered in Relation to Social ProgressMacmillan & Co.
- ___________ (1899). The logic of vegetarianism
- Sapontzis, Steve (1985). "Moral Community and Animal Rights", American Philosophical QuarterlyVol. 22, No. 3 (July), pp. 251–257.
- Sax, Boria (2000). Animals in the Third Reich: Pets, Scapegoats, and the Holocaust. Continuum International Publishing Group.
- Scruton, Roger (1998). Animal Rights and Wrongs. Claridge Press.
- ___________ (2000). "Animal Rights", City Journalsummer.
- Singer, Peter (April 5, 1973). "Animal liberation", The New York Review of BooksVolume 20, Number 5.
- ___________ (1990) [1975]. Animal Liberation. New York Review Books.
- ___________ (2000) [1998]. Ethics into Action: Henry Spira and the Animal Rights Movement. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
- ___________ (2003). "Animal liberation at 30", The New York Review of Booksvol 50, no. 8, May 15.
- ___________ (2004). "Ethics Beyond Species and Beyond Instincts," in Sunstein and Nussbaum, op cit.
- ___________ (2011) [1979]. Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
- Sorabji, Richard (1993). Animal Minds and Human Morals. University of Cornell Press.
- Sprigge, T.L.S. (1981) "Interests and Rights: The Case against Animals", Journal of Medical Ethics. June, 7(2): 95–102.
- Stamp Dawkins, Marian (1980). Animal Suffering: The Science of Animal Welfare. Chapman and Hall.
- Steiner, Gary (2005). Anthropocentrism and its Discontents: The Moral Status of Animals in the History of Western Philosophy. University of Pittsburgh Press.
- Sunstein, Cass R. (2004). "Introduction: What are Animal Rights?" in Sunstein and Nussbaum, op cit.
- Taylor, Angus (2009). Animals and Ethics: An Overview of the Philosophical Debate. Broadview Press.
- Thomas Taylor (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.
- Uekoetter, Frank (2006). The Green and the Brown: A History of Conservation in Nazi Germany. Cambridge University Press.
- Vallentyne, Peter (2005). "Of Mice and Men: Equality and Animals", The Journal of EthicsVol. 9, No. 3/4, pp. 403–433.
- ___________ (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.
- Vyvyan, John. (1969). In Pity and in Anger. M. Joseph.
- Waldau, Paul (2001). The Specter of Speciesism: Buddhist and Christian Views of Animals. Oxford University Press.
- Waldau, Paul (2011). Animal Rights: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford University Press.
- Walker, Stephen (1983). Animal Thoughts. Routledge.
- Ward, Nathaniel (1896). The Earliest New England Code of Laws, 1641. A. Lovell & Company.
- Weir, Jack (2009). "Virtue Ethics," in Marc Bekoff. Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare. Greenwood.
- 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.
- ___________ (2002). Drawing the Line: Science and the Case for Animal Rights. Perseus.
- ___________ (2004). "Animal Rights, One Step at a Time," in Sunstein and Nussbaum, op cit.
- ___________ (2007). "Animal Rights", Encyclopædia Britannica.
Further reading[edit]
- Lubinski, Joseph (2002). "Overview Summary of Animal Rights", 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.
- 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 mindin 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.
- 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 PhilosophyJuly 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.
- Linzey, Andrew and Clarke, Paul A. B.(eds.) (1990). Animal Rights: A Historic Anthology. Columbia University Press.
- ___________ (ed.) (forthcoming). Animal Encyclopedia. University of Princeton Press.
- ___________ (ed.) (forthcoming). The Global Guide to Animal Protection. University of Illinois Press.
- Mann, Keith (2007). From Dusk 'til Dawn: An Insider's View of the Growth of the Animal Liberation Movement. Puppy Pincher Press.
- 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.
- 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.
- Yunt, Jeremy D. (2004). "Shock the Monkey: Confessions of a Rational Animal Liberationist," Philosophy Now, Issue 44 (Jan./Feb.).
- Yunt, Jeremy D. (2017). Faithful to Nature: Paul Tillich and the Spiritual Roots of Environmental Ethics. Barred Owl Books.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét