Fai clic su di un'immagine per andare a Google Ricerca Libri.
Sto caricando le informazioni... The Case for Animal Rights (1983)di Tom Regan
Nessuno Sto caricando le informazioni...
Iscriviti per consentire a LibraryThing di scoprire se ti piacerà questo libro. Attualmente non vi sono conversazioni su questo libro. nessuna recensione | aggiungi una recensione
More than twenty years after its original publication, The Case for Animal Rights is an acknowledged classic of moral philosophy, and its author is recognized as the intellectual leader of the animal rights movement. In a new and fully considered preface, Regan responds to his critics and defends the book's revolutionary position. Non sono state trovate descrizioni di biblioteche |
Discussioni correntiNessunoCopertine popolari
Google Books — Sto caricando le informazioni... GeneriSistema Decimale Melvil (DDC)179.3Philosophy and Psychology Ethics Other Ethical Topics Treatment of animalsClassificazione LCVotoMedia:
Sei tu?Diventa un autore di LibraryThing. |
Published almost a decade after Peter Singer’s influential Animal Liberation, Tom Regan’s The Case for Animal Rights argues that the preference utilitarianism on which Singer based his argument for the moral value of animals was inadequate in that it could justify the sacrifice of the individual in the name of the greater good. Singer’s book was polemical in its approach, detailing the abuse of animals in medicine, science, and industry. Both Singer and Regan concluded that ethics demands we adopt a vegetarian diet. Regan is more restrained in tone, arguing against the moral status of animals in several major ethical theories, including Kantian deontology, W. D. Ross’s prima facie deontology, and the contractarian views of John Rawls. Ultimately, Regan defends a more radical biocentrism than Singer and the others. Animals, Regan says, deserve moral consideration not because of their utility or ability to suffer but because they are “individuals who have inherent value. . . and are always to be treated in ways that show respect for their independent value, not out of kindness or compassion but as a matter of strict justice.” In other words, the categorical imperative seems to apply to animals as much as it would to human children or people otherwise incapable of acting as moral agents. They are all, he says, “moral patients” whose individual welfare should matter to us. 5 stars. ( )