Joint Review: Rober t Garner Animal Ethics and Lyle Munro Confronting Cruelty: Moral Orthodoxy and the Challenge of the Animal Rights Movement

Sociology ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 375-377
Author(s):  
Pru Hobson-West
Keyword(s):  
Animal Rights ◽  
Animal Ethics ◽  
Animal Rights Movement

scholarly journals In Defense of Direct Action

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Ivar Hardman
Keyword(s):  
Coercive Force ◽  
Animal Rights ◽  
Animal Ethics ◽  
Direct Action ◽  
Prima Facie ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Animal Rights Movement ◽  
Widespread Agreement ◽  
Direct Support ◽  
Common Sense Morality

There is widespread agreement that coercive force may be used to prevent people from seriously and wrongfully harming others. But what about when those others are non-human animals? Some militant animal rights activists endorse the use of violent coercion against those who would otherwise harm animals. In the philosophical literature on animal ethics, however, theirs is a stance that enjoys little direct support. I contend that such coercion is nevertheless prima facie morally permissible. I defend this contention by arguing (a) that from the point of view of common sense morality, it is prima facie permissible to use coercive force to prevent puppies from being wrongfully mutilated and (b) that this point clearly extends to other kinds of animals and to other kinds of seriously harmful practices. I then show that there is, as a result of (b), presumptive moral justification for some of the highly controversial instances of direct action undertaken by the Animal Liberation Front and similar groups of militant animal rights activists. I close by arguing that pragmatic considerations override most proposals to undertake direct action, even when the proposed actions are prima facie morally permissible. Indeed, I conclude that although the use of violent coercion to prevent harm to animals may occasionally be ultima facie permissible, its use is in tension with (and tends to undermine) the broader agenda of the animal rights movement.

The Oxford Group and the Emergence of Animal Rights

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Garner ◽  
Yewande Okuleye
Keyword(s):  
Animal Rights ◽  
Intellectual Development ◽  
Peter Singer ◽  
Animal Rights Movement ◽  
Friendship Group ◽  
University Of Oxford ◽  
Short Period ◽  
New Ideas ◽  
Oxford Group ◽  
The University

This book is an account of the life and times of a loose friendship group (later christened the Oxford Group) of ten people, primarily postgraduate philosophy students, who attended the University of Oxford for a short period of time from the late 1960s. The Oxford Group, which included—most notably—Peter Singer and Richard Ryder, set about thinking about, talking about, and promoting the idea of animal rights and vegetarianism. The group therefore played a role, largely undocumented and unacknowledged, in the emergence of the animal rights movement and the discipline of animal ethics. Most notably, the group produced an edited collection of articles published as Animals, Men and Morals in 1971 that was instrumental in one of their number—Peter Singer—writing Animal Liberation in 1975, a book that has had an extraordinary influence in the intervening years. The book serves as a case study of how the emergence of important work and the development of new ideas can be explained, and, in particular, how far the intellectual development of individuals is influenced by their participation in a creative community.

The Philosophy behind the Movement: Animal Studies versus Animal Rights

2011 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 393-406 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elisa Aaltola
Keyword(s):  
Animal Rights ◽  
Animal Studies ◽  
Animal Rights Movement

AbstractRecently, many pro-animal thinkers have expressed critical views on the animal rights movement. In particular, the movement has been criticized for being philosophically uninformed, politically regressive, and practically unpersuasive. This paper investigates these criticisms and seeks to map out the philosophy behind the grassroots animal rights movement, specifically. It concludes that the criticism presented by animal studies scholars is often misplaced due to a lack of understanding of the philosophical notions within the movement, but that the critics are right to argue that the movement needs to place more emphasis on persuasion.

scholarly journals Ambivalent Speciesism Scale: Development, Validity and Reliability

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (18) ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Animal Rights ◽  
Social Dominance ◽  
Animal Ethics ◽  
High Reliability ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
Three Dimensions ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
The Social ◽  
Orientation Scale ◽  
Animal Use

The aim of this study is to develop a scale compatible with current animal ethics studies to measure the phenomenon of speciesism, that is marginalization of animals and prejudice and discrimination against animals. In order to develop the Ambivalent Speciesism Scale, an item pool was created by examining the animal ethics literature and social psychology studies on human-animal relations, and then the items were edited by taking the opinions of people studying animal rights and experts in measurement and evaluation in psychology. The scale is designed in 7-point Likert type. The trial form was applied to the participants together with the Speciesism Scale, the Social Dominance Orientation Scale and the Basic Empathy Scale. Participants were selected from individuals representing different lifestyles in the context of animal use, using the snowball sampling technique. The study was conducted with 288 participants; 64 men, 217 women and, 7 of whom are not of both genders. While there were 24 items in the trial form of the scale, nine of these items were eliminated as a result of the factor analysis. The final form of the scale with 15 items has a high reliability (.90). The items of the scale are divided into three dimensions: belief in human superiority, protective speciesism, and speciesism in language. It was determined that the scores obtained from the scale were in positive correlation with the scores obtained from the other scale measuring speciesism and the social dominance orientation scale, as expected. The scores obtained from the scale are distributed as expected among the groups that include lifestyles related to animal use. These data were evaluated as findings showing the validity of the scale. Keywords Speciesism, ambivalent speciesism scale, animal rights, discrimination, animal ethics

Animals in Political Theory

2015 ◽  
pp. 42-64
Author(s):  
Sue Donaldson ◽  
Will Kymlicka
Keyword(s):  
Political Theory ◽  
Animal Rights ◽  
Moral Status ◽  
Animal Ethics ◽  
Moral Rights ◽  
The Public ◽  
History Of ◽  
Human Animal ◽  
Animal Question ◽  
Blind Spots

Western political theorists have largely ignored the animal question, assuming that animals have no place in our theories of democracy, citizenship, membership, sovereignty, and the public good. Conversely, animal ethicists have largely ignored political theory, assuming that we can theorize the moral status and moral rights of animals without drawing on the categories and concepts of political theory. This chapter traces the history of this separation between animals and political theory, examines the resulting intellectual blind spots for animal ethics, and reviews recent attempts to bring the two together. Situating animal rights within political theory has the potential to identify new models of justice in human-animal relations, and to open up new areas of scholarship and research.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document