Moral Vegetarianism from a Very Broad Basis

2009 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 143-165 ◽  
Author(s):  
David DeGrazia
Keyword(s):  
Moral Status ◽  
Animal Protection ◽  
Moral Vegetarianism ◽  
Cruelty To Animals ◽  
Equal Consideration

AbstractThis paper defends a qualified version of moral vegetarianism. It defends a weak thesis and, more tentatively, a strong thesis, both from a very broad basis that assumes neither that animals have rights nor that they are entitled to equal consideration. The essay's only assumption about moral status, an assumption defended in the analysis of the wrongness of cruelty to animals, is that sentient animals have at least some moral status. One need not be a strong champion of animal protection, then, to embrace moral vegetarianism. One need only assume some reasonable view of animals' moral status.

scholarly journals David DeGrazia on Animal Rights: A Critical Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michał Pełka
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Revolution ◽  
Animal Rights ◽  
Moral Status ◽  
Critical Analysis ◽  
Animal Minds ◽  
Famous People ◽  
Social Philosopher ◽  
Equal Consideration

The article aims to critically discuss the theory of animal rights developed by American social philosopher David DeGrazia. It consists of two parts. The first one describes the main elements of DeGrazia’s approach, namely his views on animal minds, the principle of equal consideration, the idea of unequal moral status, the concept of border persons, and practical remarks concerning improving the treatment of animals by humans. The second part presents remarks about the points where DeGrazia’s proposals should be supplemented and corrected so as to make them more convincing and widely accepted. The conclusion of the essay is the proposal of a cultural revolution for the benefit of animals, which should be initiated by famous people, like actresses, actors, sportswomen and sportsmen, because of their influential position in contemporary societies.

The Carnivore Strikes Back

Dialogue ◽  
1984 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 661-668
Author(s):  
L. W. Sumner
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Real World ◽  
Moral Status ◽  
Food Source ◽  
The Real ◽  
Common Concern ◽  
Food Scarcity ◽  
Moral Vegetarianism ◽  
Moral Frameworks

Since philosophers began thinking seriously about the moral status of non-human animals, many of the practices we once took for granted have come to be condemned as unjustifiable, among them our reliance on animals as a food source. While the arguments which have been adduced in support of moral vegetarianism invoke quite different (indeed incompatible) moral frameworks, they begin with a common concern for the welfare of animals. In the real world of practising vegetarians, this concern tends to be subordinated to considerations of health or food scarcity. Philosophical vegetarians need not deny, and have not denied, the importance of these further considerations. But among philosophers the case for moral vegetarianism has rested primarily on arguments from animal welfare.

scholarly journals Dlaczego potrzebujemy nowej ustawy o humanitarnej ochronie zwierząt?

2017 ◽  
Vol 108 ◽  
pp. 73-85
Author(s):  
Michał Rudy
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
National Level ◽  
Legal Regulations ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
Animal Protection ◽  
European Regulations ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Cruelty To Animals

WHY A NEW ACT ON THE HUMANITARIAN PROTECTION OF ANIMALS IS NEEDED?Legal regulations concerning animals protection clearly state that man owes to respect the animal and each animal requires humane treatment that must be understood by taking into account the needs and protection of animals, as far as care providing. Systematic law amendments, which are concerned to protect the animals from suffering, including unjustified or inhumane killing or cruelty to animals, should be considered as the duty of state authorities. In particular it should be done due to taking into account that animals are recognized as the “subjects of law”, for which there is a special legal regime determined by the provisions devoted to the humanitarian animals protection.The main objective of this article is to identify the aspects, which — according to the author — affect the need to make amendments to the existing provisions concerning humanitarian protection of animals. This includes lack of law transparency, containing its precision and often contradictory regulations. Also, adapting to European regulations should be considered as important issue. Failure in application of European rules to national law means that the Republic of Poland violates its obligation as the Member State of the European Union. The author also notes that the current range of the requested changes proposed by law doctrine, state authorities, as well as by social organizations whose statutory purpose is humanitarian protection of animals is so broad, concerns so conflicting values and interests, as well as some of them are so “revolutionary”, that it requires a comprehensive and systemic look at the humanitarian issue of animal protection at the national level. Hence, instead of performing complicated amendments creation of avery new act on the humanitarian protection of animals should be considered.

scholarly journals Animal welfare and ecology in the contested ethics of rodent control in Cape Town

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicoli Nattrass ◽  
Jed Stephens ◽  
Jorich Johann Loubser
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Environmental Health ◽  
Job Creation ◽  
Cape Town ◽  
National Council ◽  
Representative Survey ◽  
Rodent Control ◽  
Ecological Consequences ◽  
Animal Protection ◽  
Cruelty To Animals

Abstract There is growing concern globally about the inhumane treatment of ‘pest’ animals, including rodents, and about the ecological consequences of rodenticides, notably the poisoning of non-target wildlife like raptors and scavengers. Recent contestation between Environmental Health (EH) officials in Khayelitsha, Cape Town’s largest African township, and the National Council for Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (NSPCA) illustrates the tension that can arise between innovative ecologically-focused strategies and existing legislation and animal protection practices. In 2013/14 EH officials introduced a job-creation project to trap and drown rats, describing it as ‘humane’ because it avoided poison thereby posing no danger to wildlife such as owls. The NSPCA, however, halted the project, arguing that drowning was both inhumane and illegal. Death by poison is also inhumane but the South Africa’s Animals Protection Act (1962) allows it (and trapping and hunting) to be used against ‘pests’/‘vermin’. The NSPCA, which has never challenged the Act for allowing the inhumane treatment of these animals, used it to trump local preferences. A representative survey from Khayelitsha showed that there was some support for an NSPCA-like position (14% thought that drowning was cruel and that workers should not be allowed to trap and drown rats) but that the majority (70%) indicated that they were both concerned about the poisoning of non-target animals and supported the continuation of the trapping and drowning project. This was not a contestation over whether animals should be protected, but over how to do this, and which animals to include.

scholarly journals CONTEMPORARY DEVELOPMENT OF LEGISLATION ON CRIMINALIZATION OF ANIMAL CRUELTY

2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 201-206
Author(s):  
Veselin Kirov ◽  
Iliyan Kostov ◽  
Silvia Kirova ◽  
Gergana Nikolova Balieva
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Penal Code ◽  
Animal Cruelty ◽  
Permanent Disability ◽  
Animal Protection ◽  
Administrative Punishment ◽  
Self Worth ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Contemporary Development ◽  
Cruelty To Animals

With the development of modern societies, public perceptions of animals are changing. The existence of animals begins to be seen not only as an element of property, but also gaining self-worth, and it requires an understanding of the ability of animals to feel pain, stress and suffering. Cruelty to animals has a wide public outreach and requires special attention by state competent authorities and judicial authorities to control, detect and sanction different acts of animal cruelty. Such acts should be treated as socially dangerous actions and the perpetrators should be prosecuted as there is a scientifically proven connection between cruel treatment of animals and lasting irreversible consequences on the human mentality with subsequent criminal acts. According to the national legislation of the different countries, acts of cruelty are being criminalized concerning different categories of animals or only some of them - pets, productive animals, experimental animals. Typically, specimens of wildlife as well as invertebrates are not the subject of criminalization for cases of cruelty, but of other types of crime such as illegal trade.In Bulgaria, until 2011 the specific animal welfare legislation did not give sufficient provisions for prevention of violence against animals. This led to the need to adopt amendments to the Penal Code with texts criminalizing the cruelty to animals in the country.The present study analyzes the adopted texts in the Penal Code as well as the specific veterinary legislation in order to clarify the responsibilities of the competent authorities and the sanctions imposed in case of animal cruelty acts. In Bulgaria, any manifestation of cruelty to a vertebrate animal that has led to the death, severe or permanent disability has been raised by the legislator as a separate offense with criminal liability against the perpetrator. Actions other than those defined as a commitment of an offense against animals under the new provisions of the Penal Code, shall be regarded as violations under the Act on Veterinary Activities and the Animal Protection Act and shall be subject to administrative sanctions. For a clearer definition of the nature of the action itself, a definition of the term "cruelty" is provided within the Animal Protection Act.The administrative punishment body should assess any case of cruelty against a vertebrate animal and report whether it is a criminal offense within the meaning of Art. 325b of the Penal Code, in order to avoid violation of the non bis in idem principle.

HET DODEN VAN DIEREN IN NEDERLAND, 1860-1940

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 326-347
Author(s):  
Peter Koolmees
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Animal Protection ◽  
Animal Physiology ◽  
Human Animal ◽  
Cruelty To Animals

THE KILLING OF ANIMALS IN THE NETHERLANDS, 1860-1940 A inconvenient part of the human-animal relationship This article explores the rise of the animal protection movement and its propaganda to improve the humane killing of animals in the Netherlands. From 1880 onwards, veterinarians became advisors of animal protection societies because they were considered objective judges with scientific knowledge of animal physiology. Between 1880 and 1922 cruelty to animals decreased significantly by the development and introduction of asphyxiation cages for pets and stunning equipment for slaughter animals. Although criticized, ritual slaughter remained legal. The debate on killing methods for animals with the tensions between scientific knowledge and emotions has been with us for one and a half centuries and continues today.

scholarly journals David DeGrazia o prawach zwierząt – analiza krytyczna

2020 ◽  
pp. 52-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michał Pełka
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Revolution ◽  
Animal Rights ◽  
Moral Status ◽  
Animal Minds ◽  
Famous People ◽  
Social Philosopher ◽  
Equal Consideration

The article aims to critically discuss the theory of animal rights developed by American social philosopher David DeGrazia. It consists of two parts. The first one describes the main elements of DeGrazia’s approach, namely his views on animal minds, the principle of equal consideration, the idea of unequal moral status, the concept of border persons, and practical remarks concerning improving the treatment of animals by humans. The second part presents remarks about the points where DeGrazia’s proposals should be supplemented and corrected so as to make them more convincing and widely accepted. The conclusion of the essay is the proposal of a cultural revolution for the benefit of animals, which should be initiated by famous people, like actresses, actors, sportswomen and sportsmen, because of their influential position in contemporary societies.

‘Anyone who Abuses Animals is no Italian’: Animal Protection in Fascist Italy

2020 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 669-688
Author(s):  
Giulia Guazzaloca
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Economic Efficiency ◽  
General Framework ◽  
Animal Experimentation ◽  
Animal Protection ◽  
Economic Strategies ◽  
History Of ◽  
Cruelty To Animals ◽  
Animal Welfare Legislation

This article examines the animal protection policies in fascist Italy, placing them in the more general framework of Mussolini’s political and economic strategies and the history of Italian animal advocacy, which began in the second half of the nineteenth century. Focusing on fascist propaganda campaigns on animal welfare, legislation on animal experimentation and slaughter, state reorganization of animal protection societies, which were incorporated in 1938 into the Ente nazionale fascista per la protezione animale, the article aims to show the conceptual and political basis of fascist activism in the prevention of cruelty to animals. Far from being based on the recognition of animals as sentient individuals, it was determined by specifically human interests: autarky and economic efficiency, public morality, the primacy of ‘fascist civilization’, and the regime’s totalitarian design.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document