Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. A Direct Kantian Duty to Animals.Michael Cholbi - 2014 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 52 (3):338-358.
    Kant's view that we have only indirect duties to animals fails to capture the intuitive notion that wronging animals transgresses duties we owe to those animals. Here I argue that a suitably modified Kantianism can allow for direct duties to animals and, in particular, an imperfect duty to promote animal welfare without unduly compromising its core theoretical commitments, especially its commitments concerning the source and nature of our duties toward rational beings. The basis for such duties is that animal welfare, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Can a chimp say "no"? Reenvisioning chimpanzee dissent in harmful research.Andrew Fenton - 2014 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 23 (2):130-139.
    Among the "hard cases" of captive animal research is the continued use of chimpanzees in harmful experimental science. In a recent article I contend that contemporary animal welfare science and chimpanzee behavioral studies permit, if not require, a reappraisal of the moral significance of chimpanzee dissent from participation in certain experiments. In what follows, I outline my earlier argument, provide a brief survey of some central concepts in pediatric research ethics, and use these to enrich an understanding of chimpanzee dissent (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  • Is anyone a cognitive ethologist?Colin Allen - 2004 - Biology and Philosophy 19 (4):589-607.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   16 citations  
  • Listening to Horses.Katherine Dashper - 2017 - Society and Animals 25 (3):207-224.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Violence among Beasts. Why is it Wrong to Harm Nonhuman Animals in the Context of a Game.S. P. Morris - 2018 - Philosophical Journal of Conflict and Violence 2 (2).
    The thesis of this paper is that games and sports that harm nonhuman animals are unethical because they exceed the permissible limits of optional harm and the more harm the game imposes on the nonhuman animal(s) it objectifies the worse the ethical transgression. Factors in the analysis include the nature of games and sports, the ontology of beings (i.e., human and nonhuman animals) in games, the mitigating power of informed consent among human game-players and its absence among nonhuman game players, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations