Sentience and Intrinsic Worth as a Pluralist Foundation for Fundamental Animal Rights

Kotzmann, Jane

doi:10.1093/ojls/gqad003

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This suggests a pluralistic picture of interests relevant to human rights [ 3 ]. It is not determined solely by the higher capacities that distinguish us as normatively sane persons and morally capable actors.…”

Section: Rights Beyond Anthropocentrismmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Do some or all other animals also have rights in this particularly strong sense? Although in more recent times some legal scholars have argued for legal animal rights [ 1 , 2 , 3 ], the prevailing view among lawyers is that animals lack legal personhood. Consequently, most defenders of animal rights concentrate on the possible moral foundations in order to show that animals also deserve the strong legal protection that humans already enjoy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Do Animals Have Rights?

Ladwig

2023

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Do animals have moral rights? An affirmative answer follows from the best justification for human rights that we can give. The moral status not only of humans but also of animals consists in an egalitarian right to have rights. From this equal status, however, substantially equal rights follow only if the morally relevant interests are equal. A reasonably broad and differentiated understanding of our own, human animal nature reveals which interests we share with many other animals. Thus, sentient animals have basic rights to life and well-being, including volitional activities and access to beneficial social relationships. Further rights arise from special human–animal relationships that are also politically relevant. By subjecting animals and, thus, making them existentially dependent on us, we owe them more than mere protection and help in easily remediable emergencies. We thereby also assume associative duties, as they exist among fellow citizens. Therefore, we should open our understanding of the common good to the reality of species-mixed communities and represent animals politically.

show abstract

Section: Rights Beyond Anthropocentrismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do Animals Have Rights?

Ladwig

2023

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Animal rights discourse is often polarised between the absolutist position, which contends that attainment of foundational rights and an end to all animal use are essential to giving effect to animal interests, 2 and those advocating for animal welfare standards, usually within anti‐cruelty statutes 3 . However, legal theory contends that some animals already have rights 4 . The question then becomes what form these rights take and what obligations they raise.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3 However, legal theory contends that some animals already have rights. 4 The question then becomes what form these rights take and what obligations they raise.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Animal rights and the language of human rights

Nurse

2024

Veterinary Record

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Planning without Banning: Animal Research and the Argument from Avoidable Harms

Müller

2024

Ethic Theory Moral Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The call for a planned phase-out is at the forefront of the political debate about animal experimentation. While authorities like the European Commission start taking a strategic approach to regulatory animal testing, they refuse to develop specific roadmaps for the phase-out of animal research. I articulate the central argument that is advanced against phase-out planning in animal research, the argument from avoidable harms: By restricting research, we may incur avoidable future harms and thus, while we may regret having to use animals in ways that harm them, for the sake of avoiding future harms we must not phase out animal research. The discussion of this argument yields two Conclusions: First, it applies only to ban-based phase-out plans, but not to plans consisting of a range of other interventions known from the literature on transformative governance. Second, the premises of the argument construe animal research as a necessary evil, thus as a conflict of unequal duties. But we have a duty not just to avoid avoidable harms, but also to avoid avoidable moral conflicts. This we can only do by taking a strategic approach. Thus, what initially looks like an argument against phase-out planning is in truth an argument for ban-free phase-out planning. This finding is important for practice because it shows that while government authorities’ reluctance to issue bans may be justified, their refusal to undertake strategic planning for the phase-out of animal research is not.

show abstract

Sentience and Intrinsic Worth as a Pluralist Foundation for Fundamental Animal Rights

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

Do Animals Have Rights?

Do Animals Have Rights?

Animal rights and the language of human rights

Planning without Banning: Animal Research and the Argument from Avoidable Harms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About