Showing papers on "Animal rights published in 1996"

Taking Animals Seriously-Mental life and moral status

Abstract: This book distinguishes itself from much of the polemical literature on these issues by offering the most judicious and well-balanced account yet available of animals' moral standing, and related questions concerning their minds and welfare. Transcending jejune debates focused on utilitarianism versus rights, the book offers a fresh methodological approach with specific and constructive conclusions about our treatment of animals. David DeGrazia provides the most thorough discussion yet of whether equal consideration should be extended to animals' interests, and examines the issues of animal minds and animal well-being with an unparalleled combination of philosophical rigor and empirical documentation. His book is an important contribution to the field of animal ethics and will be read with special interest by all philosophers teaching such courses, as well as biologists, those professionally involved with animals, and general readers concerned about animal welfare.

Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement

Abstract: Acknowledgments Introduction: Animal Rights and Animal Welfare 1. Animal Rights: The Rejection of Instrumentalism 2. The New Welfarists 3. The Philosophical and Historical Origins of New Welfarism 4. The Results of New Welfarism: The "Animal Confusion" Movement 5. The Empirical and Structural Defects of Animal Welfare Theory 6. Is Animal Rights a "Utopian" Theory? 7. Rights Theory: An Incremental Approach Conclusion Postscript: Marching Backwards Notes Index

Beyond animal rights : a feminist caring ethic for the treatment of animals

Abstract: This collection of essays seek to extend and further explore the feminist ethic-of-care theory to the issue of animal well-being. Together the contributors suggest ways that theorists may move beyond the limited concept of "rights", establishing care as a basis for the ethical treatment of animals.

Animal Rights and Wrongs

Abstract: Preface Metaphysics The Moral Being Life, Death, Joy and Suffering, The Moral Margin, The Roots of Moral Thinking/The Rational Basis of Moral Judgement The Moral Status of Animals Duty and the Beast: Moral Conclusions Morality and the Law Appendix Glossary of Philosophical Terms Notes Index.

The origin of speciesism.

Abstract: Anti-vivisectionists charge that animal experimenters are speciesists—people who unjustly discriminate against members of other species. Until recently most defenders of experimentation denied the charge. After the publication of The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research in the New England Journal of Medicine, experimenters had a more aggressive reply: I am a speciesist. Speciesism is not merely plausible, it is essential for right conduct .... Most researchers now embrace Cohen's response as part of their defense of animal experimentation. Cohen asserts that both rights and utilitarian arguments

Gender, gender ideology, and animal rights advocacy:

Abstract: Research on women's preponderance among animal rights advocates explains it exclusively as a product of women's socialization, emphasizing a relational orientation of care and nurturing that extends to animals. The authors propose a more structural explanation: Women's experiences with structural oppression make them more disposed to egalitarian ideology, which creates concern for animal rights. Using data from a 1993 national sample, the authors find that an egalitarian gender ideology is a key difference in women's and men's routes to animal rights advocacy: It differentiates those more likely to endorse animal rights among women but not among men. Neither this ideology nor other variables in the analysis, however, account for women's greater overall support of animal rights in the combined sample. Reasons for this latter finding are explored.

A dissection of the chapter "Tools for Research" in Peter Singer's Animal Liberation.

Abstract: The book Animal Liberation, by philosopher Peter Singer, is frequently referred to as the bible of the animal liberation/rights movement(ALARM). Thus, Singer is regarded as a major moral standard-bearer of the ALARM. Some have suggested that his book provides "intellectual rigor" to the moral arguments for animals' equality with humans, which had previously been based largely on emotionalism and sentimentality. We have analyzed the contents of the chapter "Tools for Research" which criticizes the use of animals in biomedical research as well as for drug and product-safety testing. In order to discredit these practices, Singer "documents" his arguments with 138 "notes", some of which are to the same reference and others of which contain multiple references. Of the 132 difference references, we attempted to verify the accuracy of 49 of them. Of these, 16 (33%) were inaccurate or we could not find. In addition, Singer mischaracterizes the cited studies in various ways. He quotes selectively and out of context from numerous research projects. He never mentions the objectives of these projects, except occasionally when, in our opinion, he distorts or trivializes them. Singer also cites supposedly damning "evidence" published by other antivivisectionists, even though this "evidence" has been refuted in the literature. Singer supposedly embraces utilitarianism, a philosophy which holds that the harm done by a practice should be balanced against the gain realized from it. However, he makes virtually no attempt to consider objectively the benefits that have been realized from animal-based medical research and he greatly exaggerates the costs. To him, animal research is "all pain and no gain." We believe that Singer's moral arguments for animal equality are not convincing. The lack of objectivity and the reliance upon distortion and selective quotation that characterize Singer's "scholarship" are surprising when one considers that he presents himself as an ethicist and moralist.

An animal rights attitude survey of undergraduate psychology students

Abstract: An animal rights attitude survey of 46 statements on various issues related to animal rights was given to 112 freshmen who were near the end of their first college course in introductory psychology and to 63 junior and senior psychology majors. A factor analysis yielded a multidimensional structure with attitudes toward animal research, nonresearch, environment, and evolution as factors. Beginning psychology students had a more negative attitude toward animal research than did psychology majors; however, psychology majors displayed a more positive attitude toward the environment and toward animal rights issues not involving animal research.

Animal Rights: An Eco-Socialist View

Abstract: At the beginning of 1995, amidst unprecedented government unpopularity, accusations of widespread corruption, high levels of unemployment, commercialisation of health care, and threats to valued public services, the UK political system was suddenly rocked by an explosion of protest action — over the export of calves. The Financial Times took the threat so seriously that it devoted an editorial to a careful consideration of the philosophy of animal rights before concluding that protesters ‘should not be allowed to prevent others from pursuing a legal trade’ (30 January 1995). Why should this be happening now? Why should people seem to care more about animal than human suffering? One recent philosophical critic of animal rights, Peter Carruthers, would take an unequivocal view on this: ‘I regard the present popular concern with animal rights in our culture as a reflection of moral decadence’ (Carruthers, 1992, p. xi).

Tierseele und tierethische Argumentationen in der deutschen philosophischen Literatur des 18. Jahrhunderts

Abstract: The existence of an animal soul and problems of animal ethics are often discussed in the German philosophical literature of the 18th century, especially in response to the cartesian theory of the beast machine. The following paper presents firstly a view into the early discussions and doctrines about animal souls (e.g., Winkler, Meier). It unfolds secondly some strategies for the legitimation of the death of animals, including contemporary concepts of soul, mainly under the influence of Leibniz. The third part examines some fundamental concepts of obligations to animals within the discussion of natural rights (e.g., Thomasius, Kant). Finally, examples for the early considerations about animal rights (Dietler, Smith) are presented.

Animal Rights: An Incremental Approach

Abstract: Those concerned about animal protection have for some time now debated the relative merits of animal rights and animal welfare as alternative approaches to ameliorating the plight of nonhumans. This debate has aspects of both philosophical theory and political strategy that are somewhat complicated, at least in part, because those involved in the debate often use the terms in confused and inconsistent ways. For the most part, however, the rights position maintains that at least some animals are rightholders and that treating animals solely as means to human ends violates those rights. Rights advocates argue that practices that violate animal rights should be abolished and not merely regulated. The welfare position maintains that animal interests may be ignored if the consequences for humans justify it. Although welfarists may disagree about what counts as a consequence that will override an animal interest, all welfarists accept that animals may be killed or subjected to suffering based on some consequential considerations.2

Animal care and use: an issue now and in the future.

Abstract: Animal rights proponents equate human and animal rights or capacity to suffer pain. Animal welfare is a philosophy that centers on animal well-being, a stewardship role that producers view as affecting profitability but the general public may view as having additional components. The agenda of some animal rights proponents may be positioned under the guise of animal welfare to gain acceptability for portions of their work. Currently, guidelines and accreditation programs targeted at ensuring proper animal care and use increasingly include agricultural animals. Also, public initiatives such as the Massachusetts ballot initiative to curtail animal agriculture and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine's attempts to curtail the use of milk and meat in human diets were defeated by educating the general public. Various organizations have been developed to address animal care and use issues. The Animal Industry Foundation is a broad-based agricultural organization addressing animal rights issues. National biomedical organizations, the Foundation of Biomedical Research and the National Association for Biomedical Research, address education and governmental animal rights issues. State-level coalitions, such as those recently organized in Missouri, of agricultural organizations, academic research units, biomedical institutions, and agribusiness or consumer products companies offer great promise of educating others on animals rights and welfare issues. Animal scientists need to educate themselves on these issues, participate in their own institutional Animal Care and Use Committees, and help to educate the general public through organizations and programs at the public through organizations and programs at the local, state, and national level.

Conference explores ethics of animal research with critical thinking and balanced argument.

Abstract: THE CONFRONTATION last month in Prince Georges County, Maryland, between AIDS activists and animal rights activists—resulting in the arrest of several of the former and reiterated demands for an end to biomedical research that involves animals by the latter—is a recent skirmish in an ongoing battle. The use of animals in research, testing, and teaching in the United States has increased greatly since it began in the late 1800s. Although such practices peaked in the 1970s and have been gradually decreasing in the United States, they are seen by many people as another example of technology-dependent science that has turned a deaf ear toward ethical and environmental concerns. At issue are such concerns as the degree of pain and suffering felt by non-human experimental subjects, the ecological consequences of removing higher-order animals from their communities, and the increasing use of genetic engineering without due consideration for the welfare of

Animal use in undergraduate psychology programs

Abstract: Chairpersons of undergraduate institutions that offer a psychology major but no graduate program were surveyed concerning their use of animals currently and 5 years ago. Results show that, despite the efforts of animal rights activists, there has been little change in the number of schools that use animals (about 50%) or in the aversive procedures to which animals are subjected. Surprisingly few institutions have had direct contact with animal rights activists. Chairpersons in departments that use animals report that students generally respond favorably to animal use and that American Psychological Association and National Institutes of Health guidelines are appropriate. Alternatives to animal use reported by respondents include computer simulations, video presentations, prepared slides, and human participants.

Persons, animals, and fetuses : an essay in practical ethics

Abstract: Preface. Part I: Problems and Persons. Introduction. 1. The Central Feature of Personhood. Part II: Theory and Justification. 2. Moral Knowledge. 3. Outline of a Basic Moral Theory. 4. The Difficulties of Applying Moral Principles. 5. Solving Moral Problems. Part III: What Makes an Individual a Person. 6. Who Ought to Get Moral Consideration? 7. Reasons for Granting Personhood. 8. Persons by Nature and Persons by Extension. Part IV. 9. How Animals Ought to be Treated. 10. Animal Rights. 11. What Do We Owe to Future Generations? 12. When Should we Bring New People into the World? 13. The Human Fetus: Introduction. 14. Should Fetuses be Extended Persons? 15. Abortion: Objections and Policies. 16. The End of Personhood and Cessation of Medical Procedures. 17. Euthanasia. 18. Summary. Bibliography. Notes. Index.

Animal rights v animal research: a modest proposal.

Abstract: The practical problem of assuaging the opponents of animal research may be solved without formally addressing (or resolving) the underlying ethical questions of the debate. Specifically, a peaceful boycott of the "fruits" of animal research may lead to a wider cessation of such research, than, say, vocal or even violent protest. To assist those who might wish to participate in such a boycott- and, moreover, to critically inform them of the implications of their actions-1 offer a modest proposal: the use of an "animal research advance directive", a form which enumerates precisely which "fruits of research" are declined.

Alternatives to animal testing

Abstract: The phrase “animal rights movement” includes both individuals and groups committed to animal welfare (the humane treatment of animals) and individuals and groups committed to animal rights (the reduction in numbers used or total elimination of the use of animals in safety testing and research). This movement initially began in Europe during the 19th century and is both militant and influential there even to this day. The animal rights movement came to the United States in the early part of this century and was less militant and influential until the late 1970s. At that time, a campaign focusing on a specific issue and targeting a defined industry was launched that united the disparate philosophies and groups of the animal welfare and animal rights activists. The issue was the Draize eye irritancy test that utilizes the rabbit animal model, and the industry was the highly visible and image conscious cosmetics industry. Through its trade association, the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association (CTFA), this industry responded by sponsoring a symposium on in vitro and in vivo approaches to ocular safety testing’ and subsequently founded the Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing at the Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland with a 3-year (1981-1984) $1 million grant. Subsequently, this same industry trade association granted the Center a 2-year extension grant of $700,000 (1984-1986). The first 3 years of the Center’s activities were devoted to the organization and logistics of establishing the Center to endure beyond the initial grant monies. Grants were awarded to researchers to elucidate basic mechanisms of the inflammatory process. The next two years will see this Center award grants to researchers who may be able to actually apply existing alternative test methods or develop new ones. In addition, there are research programs for

Ethical issues: impact of the animal rights movement on surgical research

Abstract: The aggressive militancy of many animal rights or "antivivisectionist" groups is causing great consternation but little action on the part of medical and surgical researchers. Pediatric surgeons are particularly affected, since issues of tissue healing, growth and development, and organ or total-body responses to surgical insults must be established in the live organism, usually in animal models that cannot be replaced by other methods. Investigators have been threatened physically; laboratories have been vandalized and valuable data destroyed. Biomedical researchers have been called "animal-Nazis." The proliferation of animal rights groups such as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have prompted the birth of pro-research organizations such as "Putting People First" and the "incurably ill For Animal Research" (iiFAR). The result of this pro and con activity is an extraordinary amount of time and expense devoted to cover the cost of new regulations and laboratory security (approximately $ 1.5 billion in the U. S. alone) at the expense of research budgets, adding to the increasing shortage of research funding. This situation has created dilemmas for the surgeon involved in basic animal research: is it worth taking personal risks to develop new techniques? Is it ethical to allow these fears to hinder progress in surgery? Should we do away with animal research entirely and test new techniques directly on children? Would that be ethical? These questions are difficult to answer, but must be addressed if we expect medicine to progress.

Fears About Illness

Abstract: It was something of a shock to read the Random Samples of 21 June (p. 1747) and find that my lecture at World Animal Awareness Week (“Disabling science: How negative stereotypes of illness have been used to promote animal experimentation”) had been given the headline: “In defense of disease.” As a former poster child and person with cerebral palsy, my lecture as a part of the panel on the science and ethics of vivisection detailed my firsthand experiences as a disability and animal rights advocate. Far from defending disease, my presentation examined how scare tactics that play on people's fears about illness are often used to promote further experimentation on nonhuman animals.

Animal liberation and the lessons of nature

Abstract: Author(s): Sapontzis, Steve F. | Abstract: The author states that “animal liberation” and “animal rights” have been misunderstood. He describes what he believes to be the basis of the animal liberation movement, relying on philosophical and moral grounds. He clarifies that animal liberation seeks neither to extend to animals the same set of rights enjoyed by humans nor to deny that human life can have greater moral worth than animal life. He concludes by explaining the ways in which scientific knowledge of natural entities, processes, and organizations is and is not relevant to animal liberation.

The Central Feature of Personhood

Abstract: Issues like abortion and animal rights are commonly held to depend upon whether the individuals in question are persons. If the human fetus is a person, then abortion is certainly wrong — perhaps even murder. If some animals are persons, then we have no right to eat them or perform experiments on them. The presumption is that persons are entitled to being treated in certain ways, that they have rights which ought to be protected, and that they have a higher moral standing than other things which are not persons.