Animal rights: Autonomy and redundancy [Book Review]
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 14 (3):259-273 (2001)
AbstractEven 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.
Similar books and articles
Animal Rights: A Non‐Consequentialist Approach.Uriah Kriegel - 2013 - In K. Petrus & M. Wild (eds.), Animal Minds and Animal Ethics. Transcript.
Animal Century: A Celebration of Changing Attitudes to Animals.Mark Gold - 1998 - J. Carpenter.
People Promoting and People Opposing Animal Rights: In Their Own Words.John M. Kistler - 2002 - Greenwood Press.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Business Failure in the Use of Animals: Ethical Issues and Contestations.Kamel Mellahi & Geoffrey Wood - 2005 - Business Ethics: A European Review 14 (2):151-163.
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.