Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics.Paul W. Taylor (ed.) - 1986
    What rational justification is there for conceiving of all living things as possessing inherent worth? In _Respect for Nature_, Paul Taylor draws on biology, moral philosophy, and environmental science to defend a biocentric environmental ethic in which all life has value. Without making claims for the moral rights of plants and animals, he offers a reasoned alternative to the prevailing anthropocentric view--that the natural environment and its wildlife are valued only as objects for human use or enjoyment. _Respect for Nature_ (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   240 citations  
  • (3 other versions)The case for animal rights.Tom Regan - 2009 - In Steven M. Cahn (ed.), Exploring ethics: an introductory anthology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 425-434.
    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.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   650 citations  
  • Moderation, morals, and meat.Frederick Ferré - 1986 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 29 (1-4):391-406.
    Meat?eating as a human practice has been under ethical attack from philosophers such as Peter Singer and Tom Regan on both utilitarian and deontological grounds. An organicist ethic, on the other hand, recognizes that all life other than the primary producers, the plants, must feed on life. This essay affirms, with many environmental ethicists, the moralconsiderability of biota other than the human, but denies that this enlargement of the moral community beyond Homo sapiens necessarily precludes our eating of meat. First, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Valuing Predation in Rolston’s Environmental Ethics: Bambi Lovers versus Tree Huggers.Ned Hettinger - 1994 - Environmental Ethics 16 (1):3-20.
    Without modification, Rolston’s environmental ethics is biased in favor of plants, since he gives them stronger protection than animals. Rolston can avoid this bias by extending his principle protecting plants (the principle of the nonloss of goods) to human interactions with animals. Were he to do so, however, he would risk undermining his acceptance of meat eating and certain types of hunting. I argue,nevertheless, that meat eating and hunting, properly conceived, are compatible with this extended ethics. As the quintessential natural (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Rights, justice, and duties to provde assistance: A critique of Regan's theory of rights.Dale Jamieson - 1990 - Ethics 100 (2):349-362.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   20 citations  
  • (1 other version)Animal liberation and environmental ethics: Bad marriage, quick divorce.Mark Sagoff - 1984 - Osgoode Hall Law Journal 22:297-307.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   28 citations  
  • Are Animals Moral Beings?S. F. Sapontzis - 1980 - American Philosophical Quarterly 17 (1):45 - 52.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  • Hunting ≠ predation.Paul Veatch Moriarty & Mark Woods - 1997 - Environmental Ethics 19 (4):391-404.
    Holmes Rolston has defended certain forms of hunting and meat eating when these activities are seen as natural participation in the food chains in which we evolved. Ned Hettinger has suggested that some of Rolston’s principles that govern our interactions with plants and animals might appear to be inconsistent with Rolston’s defense of these activities. Hettinger attempts to show that they are not. We argue that Rolston’s principles are not consistent with hunting, given Hettinger’s modifications. In his defense of Rolston, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • Taking Sympathy Seriously.John A. Fischer - 1987 - Environmental Ethics 9 (3):197-215.
    Sympathy for animals is regarded by many thinkers as theoretically disreputable. Against this I argue that sympathy appropriately underlies moral concern for animals. I offer an account of sympathy that distinguishes sympathy with from sympathy for fellow creatures, and I argue that both can be placed on an objective basis, if we differentiate enlightened from folk sympathy. Moreover, I suggest that sympathy for animals is not, as some have claimed, incompatible with environmentalism; on the contrary, it can ground environmental concern. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • A Critical Analysis of Hunters’ Ethics.Brian Luke - 1997 - Environmental Ethics 19 (1):25-44.
    I analyze the “Sportsman’s Code,” arguing that several of its rules presuppose a respect for animals that renders hunting a prima facie wrong. I summarize the main arguments used to justify hunting and consider them in relation to the prima facie case against hunting entailed by the sportsman’s code. Sport hunters, I argue, are in a paradoxical position—the more conscientiously they follow the code, themore strongly their behavior exemplifies a respect for animals that undermines the possibilities of justifying hunting altogether. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • Animal Liberation versus the Land Ethic.Edward Johnson - 1981 - Environmental Ethics 3 (3):265-273.
    J. Baird Callicott misinterprets both the way in which pain seems important to animal liberationists and why it is thought important. Examination of Callicott’s account reveals its inadequacies and strengthens the animal liberationist’s position. It also indicates that resolution of the dispute between proponents of animal liberation and the land ethic demands consideration of the justifiability of “sentientism.”.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Animal Liberation is an Environmental Ethic.Dale Jamieson - 1998 - Environmental Values 7 (1):41-57.
    I begin by briefly tracing the history of the split between environmental ethics and animal liberation, go on to sketch a theory of value that I think is implicit in animal liberation, and explain how this theory is consistent with strong environmental commitments. I conclude with some observations about problems that remain.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   34 citations  
  • Review of Holmes Rolston: Environmental Ethics[REVIEW]Peter S. Wenz - 1989 - Ethics 100 (1):195-197.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   41 citations