Animals and the State

2019 ◽  
pp. 133-152
Author(s):  
Eva Meijer
Keyword(s):  
Political Theory ◽  
Recent Work ◽  
Animal Rights ◽  
Animal Ethics ◽  
Final Section ◽  
The State ◽  
Political Systems ◽  
Human Animal ◽  
Political Communities ◽  
Political Turn

Chapter 5 draws on recent work in the so-called “political turn” in animal ethics, most notably Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka’s political theory of non-human animal rights, to discuss how these concepts can guide relations between groups of non-human animals and human political communities. The author discusses their proposals for animal citizenship and sovereignty. In the second half of this chapter, the author explains problems with traditional interpretations of sovereignty that rely on claims made by the powerful to legitimize the territorial domination of others. In order to challenge human sovereignty, we should challenge human superiority on all levels, including existing political systems. However, existing institutions and systems also hold a promise for other animals, and, like citizenship, these concepts can bring into focus new forms of interacting with other animals and institutionalizing these relations. In the final section, the author turns to examples of new ways of relating to other animals that can function as beginnings for further reformulating laws and political practices.

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.

Does Beast Suffering Count for Kant

2004 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 375-390 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heike Baranzke ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Virtue Ethics ◽  
Human Dignity ◽  
Animal Rights ◽  
Animal Ethics ◽  
Emotional Needs ◽  
Animal Suffering ◽  
Moral Concepts ◽  
Perfect Duties ◽  
Human Animal ◽  
Human Responsibility

Ever since Schopenhauer´s accusation, it has been disputed whether Kant´s few remarks concerning the ethical human-animal-relationship in the Lectures and in the Doctrine of Virtue fail to support ethical arguments on behalf of animals. One critique that plays a central role is whether Kant would have forbidden cruelty to brutes for educational purposes. In addition to these old objections, Kant´s ethics is charged to be speciesistic by animal ethicists and animal rights philosophers at present.The following article examines especially §17 of the Doctrine of Virtue, which is the only animal ethical text authorized by Kant himself. The interpretation starts by taking the context of §17 into account, particularly the “Episodic Section on an Amphiboly in Moral Concepts”. The systematic output of the cruelty-account and of the duty classes is then analyzed. Central for the understanding of Kant´s argumentation relating to animals are the perfect duties to oneself, which are linked to Kant´s foundation of human dignity. Finally the roles of the physical and emotional needs of brutes and humans in Kant´s ethics are compared with each other. Some conclusions are then drawn concerning human and animal rights in relation to a duty-based argumentation. The article therefore appreciates Kant´s integration of animal suffering into the very core of his virtue ethics, an integration that may be able to open the door for an enlightened animal ethics based on human responsibility.

scholarly journals “Who are these people?”: Anthropomorphism, Dehumanization and the Question of the Other

2013 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sowon S. Park
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Animal Rights ◽  
Animal Ethics ◽  
Inductive Inference ◽  
The Other ◽  
Interspecies Communication ◽  
Human Animal

AbstractDiscussions of the animal have repeatedly examined both our epistemological desire and our epistemological insufficiency towards the non-human animal. In different ways Spinoza, Derrida, Nagel and Berger have shown that once the anthropomorphic layer of assumption has been peeled back, there appears the abyss of incomprehension between humans and the non-human animals. Yet the ‘abyssal difference’ does not address the scale or the scope of existing knowledge; it only points to the elusive and ultimate epistemological certainty, obscuring important distinctions between degrees and kinds of interspecies communication. This paper will consider the ground that is too often overlooked in arguments that appeal to the anthropomorphic fallacy. While we cannot share another species’ experience, we can, to some extent understand it through processes of inductive inference – that is anthropomorphism – and through studying it, broaden and deepen the ontological significance of both humans and animals. By looking at the process of humanizing the non-human as a basic cognitive method, this paper will argue that anthropomorphic reasoning can not only bridge the ‘abyss’ in crucial ways but have a powerful impact on animal ethics. Then it will link anthropomorphic reasoning to the process of othering – dehumanizing the human – and make salient the processes that inform the discursive and political practices of speciesistic and cultural hierarchization. Finally, it will examine representations of anthropomorphism, dehumanization and the construction of otherness in Amitav Ghosh’s The Hungry Tide (2005), a novel which is based on the Morichjhani massacre of 1978–79, when animal rights came into conflict with human rights.

State Theory in International Relations

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucas G. Freire ◽  
Marjo Koivisto
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
State Theory ◽  
The State ◽  
Ir Theory ◽  
History Of Thought ◽  
History Of ◽  
Social Scientific ◽  
Political Communities

The state is one of the most used terms in international relations (IR) theory, and yet IR scholars influenced by both sociology and political philosophy have complained that the state and the states-system have been inadequately theorized in the field. What does the discipline mean when referring to the state? Why should state theorizing be part of IR at all? Need all state theorizing in IR be “state-centric”? There are two kinds of thinking about the state and the states-system in IR. One strand examines the history of thought about the purpose of the state and the states-system as political communities. Another explains the causes of events and transformations in the state and the states-system. These two approaches to studying the state largely translate to (1) political theory about the state and the states-system, and (2) social scientific theories of the state and the states-system in IR. Recently, both traditions have been significantly revisited in IR, and new productive synergies are emerging.

scholarly journals The Freegan Challenge to Veganism

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Josh Milburn ◽  
Bob Fischer
Keyword(s):  
Animal Ethics ◽  
Prima Facie ◽  
The Political ◽  
Domesticated Animals ◽  
Human Animal ◽  
Animal Community ◽  
Eating Animal ◽  
Political Turn

AbstractThere is a surprising consensus among vegan philosophers that freeganism—eating animal-based foods going to waste—is permissible. Some ethicists even argue that vegans should be freegans. In this paper, we offer a novel challenge to freeganism drawing upon Donaldson and Kymlicka’s ‘zoopolitical’ approach, which supports ‘restricted freeganism’. On this position, it’s prima facie wrong to eat the corpses of domesticated animals, as they are members of a mixed human-animal community, ruling out many freegan practices. This exploration reveals how the ‘political turn’ in animal ethics can offer fertile lenses through which to consider ethical puzzles about eating animals.

scholarly journals Why Does the State Have the Right to Control Immigration?

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Song
Keyword(s):  
National Identity ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
Final Section ◽  
Public Debate ◽  
The State ◽  
Immigration Law ◽  
Freedom Of Association ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Right ◽  
Normative Justification

Public debate about immigration proceeds on the assumption that each country has the right to control its own borders. But what, if anything, justifies the modern state’s power over borders? This chapter provides an answer in three parts. First, it examines the earliest immigration law cases in U.S. history and finds that the leading theorist they rely upon falls short of providing adequate normative justification of the state’s right to control immigration. In the second part, it turns to contemporary political theory and philosophy, critically assessing three leading arguments for the state’s right to control immigration: (1) national identity, (2) freedom of association, and (3) ownership/property. The third and final section offers an alternative argument based on the requirements of democracy.

Animal Agora

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. 709-735
Author(s):  
Sue Donaldson ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Animal Rights ◽  
The Political ◽  
Political Decision ◽  
Domesticated Animals ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
Human Animal ◽  
Political Decision Making ◽  
Political Turn

Many theorists of the ‘political turn’ in animal rights theory emphasize the need for animals’ interests to be considered in political decision-making processes, but deny that this requires self-representation and participation by animals themselves. I argue that participation by domesticated animals in co-authoring our shared world is indeed required, and explore two ways to proceed: 1) by enabling animal voice within the existing geography of human-animal roles and relationships; and 2) by freeing animals into a revitalized public commons (‘animal agora’) where citizens encounter one another in spontaneous, unpredictable encounters in spaces that they can re-shape together.

Pirate Nations

2013 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 551-573 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph MacKay
Keyword(s):  
Southeast Asia ◽  
Recent Work ◽  
Coastal Waters ◽  
The State ◽  
Late Imperial China ◽  
Late Imperial ◽  
Sufficient Power ◽  
State Coercion ◽  
Imperial China ◽  
Political Communities

This article assesses the pirate bands in the coastal waters of late imperial China as political communities in flight from the state. James C. Scott's (2009) recent work on fugitive political communities in the highlands of Southeast Asia presents a novel and compelling account of small, remote groups living as escapees from the state. I expand on Scott's thesis by considering pirate bands as escape groups that not only escape state coercion but go on to accumulate sufficient power to reengage with and sometimes coerce the states they escaped. The pirate bands of the period formed relationships with the Chinese state that were by turns competitive, cooperative, coercive, and extractive. They were persistently loyal to no one but themselves. Two cases illustrate the argument: that of the pirate band of Zheng Zhilong and his son Zheng Chenggong and that of the pirate queen Zheng Yi Sao.

scholarly journals Should the Lion Eat Straw Like the Ox? Animal Ethics and the Predation Problem

2021 ◽  
pp. 99-121
Author(s):  
Jozef Keulartz
Keyword(s):  
Political Theory ◽  
Animal Rights ◽  
Animal Ethics ◽  
Capability Approach ◽  
Final Destination ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Reductio Ad Absurdum ◽  
Utilitarian Approach ◽  
Predation Problem ◽  
Henry Stephens Salt

AbstractStephen Clark’s article The Rights of Wild Things from 1979 was the starting point for the consideration in the animal ethics literature of the so-called ‘predation problem’. Clark examines the response of David George Ritchie to Henry Stephens Salt, the first writer who has argued explicitly in favor of animal rights. Ritchie attempts to demonstrate—via reductio ad absurdum—that animals cannot have rights, because granting them rights would oblige us to protect prey animals against predators that wrongly violate their rights. This article navigates the reader through the debate sparked off by Clarke’s article, with as final destination what I consider to be the best way to deal with the predation problem. I will successively discuss arguments against the predation reductio from Singer’s utilitarian approach, Regan’s deontological approach, Nussbaum’s capability approach, and Donaldson and Kymlicka’s political theory of animal rights.

Kropotkin

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Kinna
Keyword(s):  
Political Theory ◽  
Human Nature ◽  
Political Change ◽  
Direct Action ◽  
The State ◽  
Social Analysis ◽  
Mutual Aid ◽  
Special Character ◽  
Revolutionary Politics

This book is designed to remove Peter Kropotkin from the framework of classical anarchism. By focusing attention on his theory of mutual aid, it argues that the classical framing distorts Kropotkin's political theory by associating it with a narrowly positivistic conception of science, a naively optimistic idea of human nature and a millenarian idea of revolution. Kropotkin's abiding concern with Russian revolutionary politics is the lens for this analysis. The argument is that his engagement with nihilism shaped his conception of science and that his expeditions in Siberia underpinned an approach to social analysis that was rooted in geography. Looking at Kropotkin's relationship with Elisée Reclus and Erico Malatesta and examining his critical appreciation of P-J. Proudhon, Michael Bakunin and Max Stirner, the study shows how he understood anarchist traditions and reveals the special character of his anarchist communism. His idea of the state as a colonising process and his contention that exploitation and oppression operate in global contexts is a key feature of this. Kropotkin's views about the role of theory in revolutionary practice show how he developed this critique of the state and capitalism to advance an idea of political change that combined the building of non-state alternatives through direct action and wilful disobedience. Against critics who argue that Kropotkin betrayed these principles in 1914, the book suggests that this controversial decision was consistent with his anarchism and that it reflected his judgment about the prospects of anarchistic revolution in Russia.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document