article thumbnail

Tom Regan on Wild Animals

Animal Ethics

With regard to wild animals, the general policy recommended by the rights view is: let them be! Tom Regan , The Case for Animal Rights , updated with a new preface [Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2004], 361 [italics in original] [first edition published in 1983]) Too little is not enough. (

article thumbnail

John Passmore (1914-2004) on Animal Suffering

Animal Ethics

Neither Aquinas nor Kant nor Newman denied, however, that animals could suffer: Descartes and Malebranche thought differently. It is impossible, they argued, to be cruel to animals, since animals are incapable of feeling. For animals did not eat of the Forbidden Tree.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

Joel Feinberg (1926-2004) on Animal Rights

Animal Ethics

So far McCloskey is on solid ground, but one can quarrel with his denial that any animals but humans have interests. I should think that the trustee of funds willed to a dog or cat is more than a mere custodian of the animal he protects. The animal itself is the beneficiary of his dutiful services.

2004 40
article thumbnail

Tom Regan on the Use of Animals in Science

Animal Ethics

Tom Regan , The Case for Animal Rights , updated with a new preface [Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2004], 388 [first edition published in 1983]) There are also some things we cannot learn by using humans, if we respect their rights. The rights view merely requires moral consistency in this regard. (

Science 40
article thumbnail

John Passmore (1914-2004) on Bentham's Treatment of Animals

Animal Ethics

" Observe the transition from slave to animal. If all pain is evil, as Bentham thought, then the pain of animals—assuming only that they can feel pain—ought not to be ignored in man's moral decisions. "The question is not," so Bentham argues, "Can they reason?" " nor "Can they talk?"

2004 40
article thumbnail

John Passmore (1914-2004) on the History of Animal Cruelty

Animal Ethics

Once a definite social movement got under way in the West with its objective the restricting of man's treatment of animals, it moved with relative rapidity. Moral philosophers began to regard it as an obvious truth that it is wrong to treat animals cruelly. But not so far as seriously to limit man's domination of the world.

article thumbnail

Joel Feinberg (1926-2004) on the Logic of Animal Rights

Animal Ethics

According to a great many philosophers and jurisprudents, animals do not have rights for the simple reason that they are not the kinds of beings who can have rights. In respect to having rights, animals are more like pebbles and sunbeams than they are like full-fledged human beings.