"Offers intriguing either/or questions and content on animal topics to encourage critical thinking and debate"--Provided by publisher.

Do all animals have rights? Is it morally wrong to use mice or dogs in medical research, or rabbits and cows as food? How ought we resolve conflicts between the interests of humans and those of other animals? Philosophical inquiry is essential in addressing such questions; the answers given must have enormous practical importance. Here for the first time in the same volume, the animal rights debate is argued deeply and fully by the two most articulate and influential philosophers representing the opposing camps. Each makes his case in turn to the opposing case. The arguments meet head on: Are we humans morally justified in using animals as we do? A vexed and enduring controversy here receives its deepest and most eloquent exposition.

Gary L. Francione is a law professor and leading philosopher of animal rights theory. Robert Garner is a political theorist specializing in the philosophy and politics of animal protection. Francione maintains that we have no moral justification for using nonhumans and argues that because animals are property or economic commodities laws or industry practices requiring "humane" treatment will, as a general matter, fail to provide any meaningful level of protection. Garner favors a version of animal rights that focuses on eliminating animal suffering and adopts a protectionist approach, maintaining that although the traditional animal-welfare ethic is philosophically flawed, it can contribute strategically to the achievement of animal-rights ends. As they spar, Francione and Garner deconstruct the animal protection movement in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe, and elsewhere, discussing the practices of such organizations as PETA, which joins with McDonald's and other animal users to "improve" the slaughter of animals. They also examine American and European laws and campaigns from both the rights and welfare perspectives, identifying weaknesses and strengths that give shape to future legislation and action.

A comprehensive examination of a hotly debated question proposes a new model for mindreading in animals and a new experimental approach. Animals live in a world of other minds, human and nonhuman, and their well-being and survival often depends on what is going on in the minds of these other creatures. But do animals know that other creatures have minds? And how would we know if they do? In Mindreading Animals, Robert Lurz offers a fresh approach to the hotly debated question of mental-state attribution in nonhuman animals. Some empirical researchers and philosophers claim that some animals are capable of anticipating other creatures' behaviors by interpreting observable cues as signs of underlying mental states; others claim that animals are merely clever behavior-readers, capable of using such cues to anticipate others' behaviors without interpreting them as evidence of underlying mental states. Lurz argues that neither position is compelling and proposes a way to move the debate, and the field, forward. Lurz offers a bottom-up model of mental-state attribution that is built on cognitive abilities that animals are known to possess rather than on a preconceived view of the mind applicable to mindreading abilities in humans. Lurz goes on to describe an innovative series of new experimental protocols for animal mindreading research that show in detail how various types of animals—from apes to monkeys to ravens to dogs—can be tested for perceptual state and belief attribution.

"Offers intriguing either/or questions and content on survival skills and situations to encourage critical thinking and debate"--

"A previous edition of this book appeared under the title Magpies, Monkeys, and Morals. The new edition has been updated throughout. Substantial new material has been added to the text, including discussions of virtue ethics and Rawlsian contractarianism. The bibliography has been significantly enlarged and now includes more than five hundred entries."--BOOK JACKET.

Reviewing the topic from antiquity to the present day, this book examines the debate over the use of animals in research in a fair and balanced way. The debate over the use of nonhuman animals in experimental research has gone on for centuries, and it continues as vigorously today as it ever has. In fact, in the last decade, the controversy has intensified, making animal testing a topic at the highest level of debate of any socioscientific issue in the United States. This book presents all sides of the issue so that readers can come to their own conclusions as to the morality and validity of animal experimentation, and provides biographies of individuals and descriptions of organizations that have been involved in the debate over the centuries. Additionally, it documents the historical shift in thinking that made animal experimentation commonplace between the time of the ancient Greeks and the 19th century, to the mindset of some who argue for an end to the practice and alternative ways of conducting medical experimentation to benefit human health.