"Including course syllabus: Humans and other animals by Kathie Jenni; course syllabus: Environmental ethics by Mylan Engel, Jr."

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

"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.

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

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.

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.

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.