Suchergebnisse

AbstractAnimal liberationists generally pay little attention to the suffering of animals in the wild, and it is arguable that this is a significant proportion of the total amount of animal suffering. We examine a range of different responses of animal liberationists to the issue of non-anthropogenic suffering, but find none of them entirely satisfactory. Responses that lead logically to the conclusion that anthropogenic suffering should be eliminated can apply equally logically to the suffering of animals in the wild. On the other hand, the solution of micro-managing habitats to prevent suffering is counter-intuitive, and on closer examination eliminates the intrinsic value of animals' lives. On balance, the approach that we favour is acceptance of the intrinsic value of individual animal lives, extending this from either individual human lives (as accepted predominantly by theists), or from biodiversity, species and ecosystems (as currently accepted by ecocentric philosophies). We also suggest that the combination of animal liberation and environmentalism only really makes sense in the context of a belief in the redeemable qualities of nature, as expressed in quasi-Hindu terms or in terms of some Biblical animal liberationist worldviews.

AbstractA useful philosophical case against vivisection influential with the general public rests on the following three premises: (1) animals have interests as conscious beings; (2) it is unethical to cause pain and suffering to conscious beings for trivial reasons; and (3) animal models cannot be extrapolated to human beings, so vivisection is a trivial reason. Darwinian arguments have been used to back up each of the three premises above, and, furthermore it has been asserted by animal liberationists that those who do not hold to the evolutionary paradigm are more likely to support vivisection. Here, we present arguments that show why a belief in Darwinism (or in evolution generally) neither strengthens nor weakens the three anti-vivisectionist premises above. We also argue that there is no evidence to suggest that Darwinists are any less (or more) likely to support vivisection than those who hold views on biological origin that are further from the scientific mainstream. By leaving out arguments on origins, we hope that Darwinists, non-Darwinist evolutionists and creationists of all types can work together to make the world a better place for non-human animals.