Review of Wesley J. Smith's A Rat is a Pig is a Dog is a Boy: The Human Cost of the Animal Rights Movement

Taylor, Angus

doi:10.15368/bts.2010v13n10.13

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As Angus Taylor puts it, advocates of human supremacism, like Maritain, ‘cannot countenance just any ethical view that protects humans, for it is not enough to include all humans within the moral community – one must simultaneously exclude all non-humans. And this is crucial: human exceptionalism is at least as much about whom we are determined to exclude from the moral community as about whom we wish to include within it’ (Taylor 2010, 228, emphasis in original). Maritain's theory of HR is supremacist in this specific sense.…”

Section: Locating Species Hierarchy In the Hr Traditionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human rights without human supremacism

Kymlicka

2018

Can. J. of Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Early defenders of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights invoked species hierarchy: human beings are owed rights because of our discontinuity with and superiority to animals. Subsequent defenders avoided species supremacism, appealing instead to conditions of embodied subjectivity and corporeal vulnerability we share with animals. In the past decade, however, supremacism has returned in work of the new ‘dignitarians’ who argue that human rights are grounded in dignity, and that human dignity requires according humans a higher status than animals. Against the dignitarians, I argue that defending human rights on the backs of animals is philosophically suspect and politically self-defeating.

show abstract

Section: Locating Species Hierarchy In the Hr Traditionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human rights without human supremacism

Kymlicka

2018

Can. J. of Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The Harmful, Nontherapeutic Use of Animals in Research Is Morally Wrong

Nobis

2011

The American Journal of the Medical Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is argued that using animals in research is morally wrong when the research is nontherapeutic and harmful to the animals. This article discusses methods of moral reasoning and discusses how arguments on this and other bioethical issues might be defended and critiqued. A basic method of moral argument analysis is presented and used to show that common objections to the view that "animal research is morally wrong" fail: ie, common arguments for the view that "animal research is morally permissible" are demonstrably unsound or in need of defense. It is argued that the best explanations why harmful, nontherapeutic research on human beings is wrong, ie, what it is about humans that makes such experimentation wrong, apply to many animals as well. Thus, harmful and nontherapeutic animal experimentation is wrong for reasons similar to the reasons that harmful and nontherapeutic human experimentation is wrong.

show abstract

Review of Wesley J. Smith's A Rat is a Pig is a Dog is a Boy: The Human Cost of the Animal Rights Movement

Cited by 2 publications

References 9 publications

Human rights without human supremacism

Human rights without human supremacism

The Harmful, Nontherapeutic Use of Animals in Research Is Morally Wrong

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About