Using the research on intergroup conflict in nonhuman animals to help inform patterns of human intergroup conflict

2019 ◽  
Vol 42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda R. Ridley ◽  
Melanie O. Mirville
Keyword(s):  
Large Body ◽  
Nonhuman Animal ◽  
Intergroup Conflict ◽  
Costs And Benefits ◽  
Animal Groups ◽  
Interesting Article ◽  
Nonhuman Animals

Abstract There is a large body of research on conflict in nonhuman animal groups that measures the costs and benefits of intergroup conflict, and we suggest that much of this evidence is missing from De Dreu and Gross's interesting article. It is a shame this work has been missed, because it provides evidence for interesting ideas put forward in the article.

scholarly journals Nonhuman Animal Rights, Alternative Food Systems, and the Non-Profit Industrial Complex

PhaenEx ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Corey Lee Wrenn
Keyword(s):  
Animal Rights ◽  
Food Production ◽  
Food Systems ◽  
Nonhuman Animal ◽  
Alternative Food ◽  
Industrial Complex ◽  
Alternative Food Systems ◽  
Non Profit ◽  
Alternative Systems ◽  
Nonhuman Animals

Alternative food systems (namely the humane product movement) have arisen to address societal concerns with the treatment of Nonhuman Animals in food production. This paper presents an abolitionist Nonhuman Animal rights approach (Francione, 1996) and critiques these alternative systems as problematic in regards to goals of considering the rights or welfare of Nonhuman Animals. It is proposed that the trend in social movement professionalization within the structure of a non-profit industrial complex will ultimately favor compromises like “humane” products over more radical abolitionist solutions to the detriment of Nonhuman Animals. This paper also discusses potential compromises for alternative food systems that acknowledge equal consideration for Nonhuman Animals, focusing on grassroots veganism as a necessary component for consistency and effectiveness.

Two Trips across One Globe: Earth and Planet Earth Fothergill, A., & Linfield, M. (Directors). (2007). Earth [Documentary]. United States: Disneynature. Fothergill, A. (Director). (2006). Planet Earth. [Television series]. United Kingdom: BBC/Greenlight Media/Discovery Channel.

2010 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 428-432
Author(s):  
Mary Beth Woodson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Nonhuman Animal ◽  
Television Series ◽  
Nonhuman Animals ◽  
The Future ◽  
The One

AbstractThis review explores the twin documentaries Earth and Planet Earth. Both are structured with the same goal of exploring our planet and its nonhuman animal inhabitants, but they diverge in approach. Using Disney’s “True-Life Adventure” series as an ideal, the view of human-nonhuman animal relations presented in Earth differs from the one presented in Planet Earth. While the former relies strongly on a purified image that mirrors traditional (Western, human) ideals, the latter presents an image that is both less “neat” and less reliant on attributing humanlike qualities to nonhuman animals. There are some similarities, however, especially regarding the human role in the future survival of the planet’s nonhuman animals.

“Animals Like Us”: Identifying with Nonhuman Animals and Support for Nonhuman Animal Rights

Anthrozoös ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 165-177
Author(s):  
Courtney N. Plante ◽  
Stephen Reysen ◽  
Sharon E. Roberts ◽  
Kathleen Gerbasi
Keyword(s):  
Animal Rights ◽  
Nonhuman Animal ◽  
Nonhuman Animals

Nuclear Deterrence—Another Perfect Storm

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Rendall
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Future Generations ◽  
Nuclear Deterrence ◽  
Costs And Benefits ◽  
Nuclear War ◽  
Nonhuman Animals ◽  
Business As Usual ◽  
Global Heating ◽  
Perfect Storm

This chapter applies Stephen M. Gardiner’s model of the perfect moral storm to nuclear deterrence. Most damage from a major nuclear war would fall on third parties rather than the belligerents. Some would be present-day people in neutral countries and nonhuman animals, but future generations would be the largest group of victims. This makes ongoing reliance on large nuclear arsenals ethically indefensible. It presents many of the same problems, however, as global heating. One is that future damages are not salient to present-day publics and politicians. Another is that nuclear weapons reduce the probability of major war while greatly increasing the damage if it occurs. This affects the intergenerational distribution of costs and benefits. Nuclear deterrence is a ‘front-loaded’ good: its benefits arrive right away, whereas its costs will most likely arrive only in the future. Nuclear war is inevitable if states rely on it in perpetuity, but for a given generation, the likelihood may be small. “Business-as-usual” may thus be a good self-interested gamble for each generation until nuclear war actually occurs. Not surprisingly, it finds many defenders. The last part of the chapter considers possible solutions.

scholarly journals Nonhuman Animal Pain and Capital Punishment in Beckett’s “Dante and the Lobster”

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 436-455
Author(s):  
Katherine Ebury
Keyword(s):  
Capital Punishment ◽  
Nonhuman Animal ◽  
Historical Documents ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Animal Pain ◽  
Nonhuman Animals ◽  
Alternative Reading ◽  
Newspaper Articles

This article offers a fresh examination of the representation of nonhuman animals in Beckett’s early aesthetics, using “Dante and the Lobster” as a case study. Beckett’s story is illuminated by historical documents including newspaper articles, which will allow readers to see more clearly the deliberate parallels drawn between the question of the lobster’s suffering and the planned execution of a criminal that Belacqua contemplates throughout the day. An alternative reading model of the text, focusing on the Joycean concept of parallax rather than the Dantean concept of pity, will be developed. The article closes by examining Beckett’s views on allegorical readings of texts containing representations of nonhuman animals and his later notes on E. P. Evans’s 1906 work,The Criminal Prosecution and Capital Punishment of Animals.

scholarly journals Nonhuman Animal Experiments in the European Community: Human Values and Rational Choice

2010 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kay Peggs
Keyword(s):  
Impact Assessment ◽  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Rational Choice ◽  
European Community ◽  
Animal Experiments ◽  
Nonhuman Animal ◽  
Moral Issues ◽  
Self Interest ◽  
Nonhuman Animals ◽  
The Impact

AbstractIn 2008, the European Community (EC) adopted a Proposal to revise the EC Directive on nonhuman animal experiments, with the aim of improving the welfare of the nonhuman animals used in experiments. An Impact Assessment, which gauges the likely economic and scientific effects of future changes, as well as the effects on nonhuman animal welfare, informs the Proposal. By using a discourse analytical approach, this paper examines the Directive, the Impact Assessment and the Proposal to reflect critically upon assumptions about the morality of nonhuman animal experiments. Because nonhuman animal welfare is so prominent in the Proposal, it appears that the EC position advances beyond human self-interest (orthodox rational choice) as the sole motivator for such experiments, to ethical questions about the welfare of nonhuman animals (which can be better explained by a multidimensional approach to rational choice). In examining this contention, this paper concludes that, even given concerns about nonhuman animal welfare, nonhuman animal experimentation in the EC is firmly grounded in a morality that focuses on human benefit goals rather than on the wider moral issues associated with the means of achieving such goals.

The Faces Monkeys Make

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eliza Bliss-Moreau ◽  
Gilda Moadab
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Nonhuman Animal ◽  
Social Signals ◽  
Social Functions ◽  
Macaque Monkeys ◽  
Nonhuman Animals ◽  
Facial Behavior

In the 140-plus years since Darwin popularized the study of nonhuman animal emotion, interest in the emotional lives of nonhuman animals has expanded rapidly. On the basis of Darwin’s anecdotal observations about facial behaviors, it is often assumed that facial behaviors give evidence of emotion in both humans and nonhuman animals. These assumptions are then used to support claims about the evolution of emotion. In this chapter, we explore the empirical evidence about the structure and meaning of facial behaviors generated by macaque monkeys. Evidence indicates that individual facial behaviors occur in a wide variety of contexts and subserve a variety of social functions. Furthermore, macaques are not particularly good at discriminating between all facial behavior categories. Taken together, the evidence suggests that facial behaviors in macaques do not give evidence of specific emotions, but rather serve as complex social signals.

What Can a Farm Animal Biography Accomplish? The Case of Portrait of a Burger as a Young Calf

2005 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 245-262 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ariel Tsovel
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Animal Rights ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
Nonhuman Animal ◽  
Farm Animal ◽  
Emotional Attachment ◽  
Young Calf ◽  
Nonhuman Animals

AbstractAgricultural reports and guides, nonhuman animal welfare studies, and animal rights reports attempt to document and convey the condition of nonhuman animals in agriculture. These disciplines tend to resist a prolonged and methodically versatile examination of individual animals. In his pioneer work, Lovenheim (2002), The author produced such a biographical documentation of calves in the dairy and meat industries. He provided an exceptionally prolonged and detailed tracing of their lives as individuals, establishing an emotional attachment in both documenter and reader. Yet, sentiments for the farmers, typical urban conceptions of communication with nonhuman animals, and difficulties in obtaining the relevant information limit Lovenheim's success and imply similar difficulties in other cases.

scholarly journals Foxes, Hounds, and Horses: Who or Which?

2006 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 107-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthea Fraser Gupta
Keyword(s):  
World Wide Web ◽  
World Wide ◽  
Nonhuman Animal ◽  
Nonhuman Animals ◽  
The World ◽  
High Level

AbstractWriters of English can choose whether to mark a high level of sentience in a nonhuman animal by selecting the word who rather than which. An examination of texts relating to foxhunting on the world wide web showed that, in reference to the nonhuman animals involved in foxhunting, writers were most likely to use who in reference to foxes, and least likely to use it in reference to horses. Those who support foxhunting are more likely to recognize the sentience of the fox than those who oppose foxhunting. This may be because those who enjoy foxhunting present the fox as an active creator of the hunt, and as a worthy opponent.

In It for the Nonhuman Animals: Animal Welfare, Moral Certainty, and Disagreements

2004 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 317-339 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicola Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Animal Rights ◽  
Nonhuman Animal ◽  
Ethnographic Research ◽  
Missionary Zeal ◽  
Nonhuman Animals ◽  
The World ◽  
Good For ◽  
Moral Certainty ◽  
Welfare Workers

AbstractBased on three years' ethnographic research with animal sanctuary workers, this paper argues that a level of moral certainty drives and justifies many of the workers' actions and beliefs. Similar to the "missionary zeal" of nonhuman animal rights activists, this moral certainty divides the world into two neat categories: good for the animals and bad for the animals. This overriding certainty takes precedence over other concerns and pervades all aspects of sanctuary life, resulting in the breakdown of different facets of that life into good and bad homes, good and bad animals, and good and bad workers. The paper, therefore, argues that animal welfare workers may be as "radical" as animal rights activists in one respect—their adherence to the overriding principle of being "in it for the animals."

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document