Evolution, animal 'rights', & the environment
Author(s)
Bibliographic Information
Evolution, animal 'rights', & the environment
Catholic University of America Press, c2000
- : pbk
- Other Title
-
Evolution, animal 'rights', and the environment
Available at 20 libraries
  Aomori
  Iwate
  Miyagi
  Akita
  Yamagata
  Fukushima
  Ibaraki
  Tochigi
  Gunma
  Saitama
  Chiba
  Tokyo
  Kanagawa
  Niigata
  Toyama
  Ishikawa
  Fukui
  Yamanashi
  Nagano
  Gifu
  Shizuoka
  Aichi
  Mie
  Shiga
  Kyoto
  Osaka
  Hyogo
  Nara
  Wakayama
  Tottori
  Shimane
  Okayama
  Hiroshima
  Yamaguchi
  Tokushima
  Kagawa
  Ehime
  Kochi
  Fukuoka
  Saga
  Nagasaki
  Kumamoto
  Oita
  Miyazaki
  Kagoshima
  Okinawa
  Korea
  China
  Thailand
  United Kingdom
  Germany
  Switzerland
  France
  Belgium
  Netherlands
  Sweden
  Norway
  United States of America
Note
Includes bibliographical references (p. 377-389) and index
Description and Table of Contents
Description
The author of this study undertakes an investigation of the metaethical grounds of ""rights"" theory, with special focus on the controversial issue of whether creatures other than humans can and should be considered true subjects of ""rights"". He contends that before assigning rights to this or that individual or group, whether human or not, we need to be very clear about what it is we are assigning, to whom and why. The book argues that the efforts to build a case supporting animal and environmental ""rights"" fail in their quest, and that any such effort resting on a Darwinian evolutionary base is likewise condemnded to fail. The author investigates life phenomena, followed by a detailed comparative study of knowing, communicating and doing, as these are observed in the human and nonhuman animal. This is followed by an overview of diverse views advanced by contemporary environmental ethnicists and animal ""rights"" advocates, including Peter Singer, Tom Regan, J. Baird Callicott, Laura Westra, and Don E. Marietta Jr. Conclusions drawn from this study include the claims that: classic Darwinian theory provides no admissable premise from which to derive a theory of inherent, inalienable rights; no satisfactory explanation of the origin of rghts and obligation can derive save from within the context of natural law theory; the human person alone unqualifiedly possesses rights; and the view that vegetarianism is an ethical mandate is neither compatible with the Christian world view, nor philosophically sound.
Table of Contents
- The Phenomenon of Living Things
- Intelligence in the Human and the Nonhuman Animal
- Freedom in the Human and the Nonhuman Animal
- Human and Nonhuman Language
- The Human, the Nonhuman, and Rights
- Anthocentrism, Biocentrism and Envirocentrism
- Animals in the Human World
- The Nonhuman Animal and the Theologian.
by "Nielsen BookData"