An interdisciplinary examination of the foundations of our moral attitudes toward animals, drawing from philosophy, neuroscience, psychology, law, history, sociology, economics, and anthropology to posit that humans have an enduring concern that animals pose a threat to our humanness that creates psychological obstacles in meeting ethical demands toward animals.
This collection, while putting animals and their welfare and rights at the center of the analysis, examines the questions inherent in putting animals to work, including whether animal labor is inherently oppressive, or can, in certain circumstances, be to their benefit.
Rooted in Kantian thought, this book sets forth the claim that we are obligated to treat all sentient beings as what Kant called "ends-in-themselves." Critical of Kant's view that our duties to animals are indirect, Korsgaard also addresses a number of practical questions relating to our use of animals, such as for food, as scientific tools and as companions.
Essays by scholars, scientists and sanctuary workers exploring the social, political and ethical themes that imprisonment, of animals or humans, raises, including the value of liberty, the nature of autonomy, the meaning of dignity, and the impact of routine confinement on physical and psychological well-being.
A political scientist who has written prolifically about animals argues here that our thinking about the proper way to treat animals should be rooted in concepts of justice. While acknowledging that there are many steps from where we are to where we should be in our treatment of animals, Garner argues for the concept of animal rights, including the right not suffer at the hands of humans.
Political theory is the grounding for this analysis of the obligations that arise from the varied ways that animals relate to human societies and institutions. The authors assert that, since different types of animals, i.e., domesticated animals, wilderness animals and “liminal” animals, stand in different relationships to human political communities, humans bear different obligations to them, albeit that all are owed respect for basic inviolable rights.
Argues for a 'sentientist cosmopolitan democracy': a global political system made up of overlapping local, national, regional and global communities comprised of human and non-human members who exist within shared 'communities of fate.' Suggests the use of dedicated representatives of non-human animals whose job should be to translate the interests of animals into deliberations.
Addresses the animal protection issues created by the dispersal of production facilities in animal use industries across territories of multiple states, creating and exacerbating regulatory gaps and creating the conditions for a race to the bottom. Argues that extraterritorial jurisdiction must respond to these developments, counters possible objections, and describes how to improve animal law in tandem.
An interdisciplinary examination of the foundations of our moral attitudes toward animals, drawing from philosophy, neuroscience, psychology, law, history, sociology, economics, and anthropology to posit that humans have an enduring concern that animals pose a threat to our humanness that creates psychological obstacles in meeting ethical demands toward animals.
Contributions from scholars in a wide range of fields regarding the ongoing reevaluation of the relationship between humans and other animals that has been developing since the 1970s, covering the following categories: Animals in the Landscape of Law, Politics and Public Policy; Animal Intentionality, Agency and Reflexive Thinking; Animals as Objects in Science, Food, Spectacle and Sport; Animals in Cultural Representations; and Animals in Ecosystems.