Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
He cites the philosopher R.G. Frey (1941–2012), a leading animal rights critic, who wrote in 1983 that, if forced to choose between abandoning experiments on animals and allowing experiments on "marginal-case" humans, he would choose the latter, "not because I begin a monster and end up choosing the monstrous, but because I cannot think of ...
Sentientists consider that arbitrarily giving different moral weight to sentient beings based solely on their species membership is a form of unjustified discrimination known as speciesism. Many self-described humanists see themselves as "sentientists" where the term humanism contrasts with theism and does not describe the sole focus of ...
The argument from marginal cases (also known as the argument from species overlap) [1] is a philosophical argument within animal rights theory regarding the moral status of non-human animals. Its proponents hold that if human infants, senile people, the comatose, and cognitively disabled people have direct moral status, non-human animals must ...
Taylor was a critic of animal rights and he held the view that only humans have moral rights. He argued that animals and plants cannot have rights because they lack certain capacities for exercising them. [1] Despite this, his biocentric outlook asserted that humans are not superior to wild animals or plants and they all have inherent worth. [1]
The best known research technique in this area is the mirror test devised by Gordon G. Gallup, in which the skin of an animals (or human infant) is marked, while they are asleep or sedated, with a mark that cannot be seen directly but is visible in a mirror. The animals are then allowed to see their reflection in a mirror; if the animal ...
All living organisms pursue their own "good" in their own ways. Human beings are not inherently superior to other living things. [8] The most important of these four main pillars is likely the idea that human beings are not inherently superior to other living things. People have divergent views on many specific aspects of almost everything.
Emma Thompson issued a stark warning about the climate crisis, suggesting that conditions may become so dire that people will eat their pets for protein. Emma Thompson suggests climate change may ...
He argues that this does not apply to plants, and that even if plants did have rights, abstaining from eating meat would still be moral due to the use of plants to rear animals. [2] According to philosopher Michael Marder, the idea that plants should have rights derives from "plant subjectivity", which is distinct from human personhood. [3]