Animal rights: Autonomy and redundancy [Book Review]

Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 14 (3):259-273 (2001)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Even if animal liberation were to be adopted, would rights for animals be redundant – or even deleterious? Such an objection, most prominently voiced by L. W. Sumner and Paul W. Taylor, is misguided, risks an anthropocentric and anthropomorphic conception of autonomy and freedom, overly agent-centered rights conceptions, and an overlooking of the likely harmful consequences of positing rights for humans but not for nonhuman animals. The objection in question also stems from an overly pessimistic construal of autonomy-infringements thought to result from extending rights to animals, and also, of confusions that supposedly may ensue from ascribing animal rights. Whether or not a case for animal liberation and/or animal rights can cogently be made, the redundancy-or-worse objection to animal rights need pose no barrier.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 74,174

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
76 (#156,977)

6 months
1 (#413,813)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

Business Failure in the Use of Animals: Ethical Issues and Contestations.Kamel Mellahi & Geoffrey Wood - 2005 - Business Ethics, the Environment and Responsibility 14 (2):151–163.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Animal Liberation or Animal Rights?Peter Singer - 1987 - The Monist 70 (1):3-14.
Animal Welfare and Animal Rights.L. W. Sumner - 1988 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 13 (2):159-175.

Add more references