Animal Rights and Protection

Tshewang, Ugyen; Tobias, Michael Charles; Morrison, Jane Gray

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-57824-4_4

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In those societies in which certain animals at least obtain a status that approaches that of humans, a rights‐like freedom is primarily based on religious rules or principles, such as ahimsa , the principle of nonviolence (against all living beings), or karuṇā , the principle of compassion, which is related to the wish that all sentient beings should be free of any suffering and of any causes of suffering (Haris, 2022). For some forms of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Jainism, adherence to these principles is a way to attain favorable rebirth, and this adherence involves granting rights‐like freedom to animals (e.g., Phelps, 2004; Tshewang et al, 2021). There is, furthermore, some legislation, under which it is not possible to farm, slaughter and eat animals defined as pets, which exemplifies another rights‐like protection of certain species (Grier, 2020).…”

Section: Avoidance Of Unnecessary Suffering As the Moral Minimum Stan...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Avoiding unnecessary suffering: Towards a moral minimum standard for humans' responsibility for animal welfare

Köllen

Schneeberger

2023

Business Ethics Env & Resp

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Animals are an important part of our social, economic and corporate world. Their wellbeing is significantly affected by the ways in which humans treat them. However, animals have long remained (and, indeed, continue to remain) effectively invisible in the business ethics and corporate responsibility discourse. This article argues in favor of the moral necessity of according animal welfare a higher priority in business. In line with most streams in both recent and traditional animal ethics, this article derives the avoidance of unnecessary animal suffering as the moral minimum standard for responsible management in the livestock industry. Based on a broad range of different interpretations of what animal suffering may be necessary, the article discusses three distinct ways in which humans working in the animal industry could meet their moral responsibility to avoid unnecessary suffering, and, with this, increase animal welfare: by ameliorating circumstances for animals, by aiming at a two‐pronged transformation, or by transforming into a “zero‐suffering” business. Considering animal welfare as a legitimate ethical value in and of itself is a first step towards overcoming the anthropocentric bias in today's sustainability and corporate responsibility debate.

show abstract

Section: Avoidance Of Unnecessary Suffering As the Moral Minimum Stan...mentioning

confidence: 99%