"Animal Rights and Moral Philosophy" examines the major arguments for animal rights proposed to date and adds a new dimension. Julian H. Franklin begins by considering the utilitarian argument of equal respect for animals associated with Peter Singer and the rights approach advanced by Tom Regan. Despite their merits, both positions are found too limited as theoretical foundations for animal rights. Franklin follows with a new interpretation of Kant's categorical imperative, showing that it can be expanded to provide the basis of a system of rights that includes all sentient beings. He also shows why other forms of rationalism cannot be similarly expanded. Franklin then critically discusses the concern for animals in doctrines of compassion, including the ecofeminist ethic of care and Albert Schweitzer's ethic of reverence for life. In a concluding chapter he considers the conflict between the rights of animals and humans to the environment and reflects on possible solutions.

Discusses the theoretical and practical issues related to animals and morality, focusing on the problems of research animals and pets, and looking at the breach between animal advocates and the scientific and medical community.

In this acclaimed book, Scruton takes the issues relating to vivisection, hunting, animal testing and BSE and places them in a wider framework of thought and feeling. Now available in paperback

Regan provides the theoretical framework that grounds a responsible pro-animal rights perspective, and ultimately explores how asking moral questions about other animals can lead to a better understanding of ourselves.

THE argument for animal rights, a classic since its appearance in 1983, from the moral philosophical point of view. With a new preface.

It is widely agreed that because animals feel pain we should not make them suffer gratuitously. Some ethical theories go even further: because of the capacities that they possess, animals have the right not to be harmed or killed. These views concern what not to do to animals, but we also face questions about when we should, and should not, assist animals that are hungry or distressed. Should we feed a starving stray kitten? And if so, does this commit us, if we are to be consistent, to feeding wild animals during a hard winter? In this controversial book, Clare Palmer advances a theory that claims, with respect to assisting animals, that what is owed to one is not necessarily owed to all, even if animals share similar psychological capacities. Context, history, and relation can be critical ethical factors. If animals live independently in the wild, their fate is not any of our moral business. Yet if humans create dependent animals, or destroy their habitats, we may have a responsibility to assist them. Such arguments are familiar in human cases-we think that parents have special obligations to their children, for example, or that some groups owe reparations to others. Palmer develops such relational concerns in the context of wild animals, domesticated animals, and urban scavengers, arguing that different contexts can create different moral relationships.

Animals and Ethics 101 helps readers identify and evaluate the arguments for and against various uses of animals, such: - Is it morally wrong to experiment on animals? Why or why not? - Is it morally permissible to eat meat? Why or why not? - Are we morally obligated to provide pets with veterinary care (and, if so, how much?)? Why or why not? And other challenging issues and questions. Developed as a companion volume to an online "Animals & Ethics" course, it is ideal for classroom use, discussion groups or self study. The book presupposes no conclusions on these controversial moral questions about the treatment of animals, and argues for none either. Its goal is to help the reader better engage the issues and arguments on all sides with greater clarity, understanding and argumentative rigor. Includes a bonus chapter, "Abortion and Animal Rights: Does Either Topic Lead to the Other?"