Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
15 of 15 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
small, perfectly formed, 6 Nov 2003
I'd lend my copy this book to anyone even vaguely interested in the subject. I can't really assess how sound the philosophy behind the ideas in this book is, because i don't really know it, but as an outline of the main animal rights theories, its impeccable. DeGrazia has written more academic works, but this is very straightforward and accessible, it certainly made me think about animals in a different way.Criticism - its not impartial. The author quickly states his own perspective and views, and these always seem to get the most covereage. He appears to sometimes dismiss criticism of animal rights a bit too flippantly. But overall, this is a very readable and interesting book.
|
|
|
4.0 out of 5 stars
Rights and Wrongs, 27 Jul 2009
The philosophy of "animal rights" has a bad reputation, largely because of the statements of animal rights activists such as Jerry Vlasak who advocated the assassination of scientists involved in animal research and Tim Daly who announced his support for petrol bombs, bombs under cars and shooting vivisectors on their own doorstep.
In recent times scientists working for companies involved in such research have been the victims of bomb hoaxes, harassment and threatening phone calls while, in December 2008, seven activists were found guilty of conspiracy to blackmail companies. Apparently, activists thought human rights were worth less than those of other animals. So much for their claim that the movement is based on "love and compassion."
Of course, it would be manifestly unfair to judge animal rights philosophy by the extreme activities of a few wingnuts, just as it is unfair to judge Islam by the events of 9/11, or Christianity by the murder of abortionists, but the idea of animal rights appears to have overtaken the concept of animal welfare, a concept which has been around for a long time. In common with many ideas the appeal of animal rights is couched in the language of reason but based on the practice of emotionalism. This book illustrates the point perfectly.
The underlying weakness of animal rights lies in its philosophical foundation. If Darwinism is correct and only the fit survive then the superiority of human beings over other animals is natural. However, Peter Singer, whose work, Animal Liberation (1975), argued on utilitarian grounds that as animals could feel pleasure and pain they should be considered as having "rights" is a nonsense to which many of the "moral" arguments evidenced in this short work attest. Animal Rights' philosophy treats dogs as equal with humans as opposed to the former deserving humanised treatment. The extremists boast they would rather save a bright dog at the expense of a retarded child.
As has been pointed out by critics, animal rights is a hotch-pot of unrelated streams of thought superimposed on the failed philosophy of liberalism with a pinch of Marxism thrown in to raise the emotional temperature. As Edward Skidelsky noted in a New Statesman article, " A right is an active possession, not a passive bequest. It is something you can assert or forgo; something you can defend or relinquish. Animals cannot fight for their rights, still less can they forgo them. To grant rights to animals would be to empty that term of what little meaning it still possesses". The relationship between humans and animals is inherently unequal. To pretend otherwise is to live in cloud cuckoo land.
However, while the philosophical arguments regurgitated in the book aren't worth the paper they are written on, the practical examples of the inappropriate treatment of animals, factory farming, animals in cages or killed for human pleasure, certainly are. Human beings have an obligation not to inflict cruelty on animals for its own sake. I'm not enamoured of keeping animals in zoos rather than letting them roam in the wild. I've never understood the mentality of fox-hunting since I read one hunter's stupid claim that, "the fox enjoys it". In addition, I cannot understand why anyone would want to drown the dog which is now looked after by my daughter. The dog has never explained it to me either.
There are some solid arguments produced in the book, particularly those on animal welfare. The question of whether experiments carried out on one species is to right way to find out if they will work on another requires an answer. Using animals to test cosmetics, in my view, constitutes an arrogance based on vanity not humanity. I agree wholeheartedly with the author (who is clear in where he stands on issues) that animals are not mere tools for the use of humans. Similarly, rational arguments for treating animals ethically has merit.
However, those ethics are the ethics of human beings not the rights of the animals themselves. Using the ends to justify the means has always been a political decision and animal rights is simply another re-statement of the supremacy of politics in all human relationships both with animals and with each other.
|
|
|
5.0 out of 5 stars
As an introduction, it is perfect, 16 May 2009
I used this as an introductory book, as it were, to animal ethics and theory in other books.
David DeGrazia, an authoritive author on animal rights literature, examines briefly three main issues that demand a reasoned perspective on animal welfare, and these are: animals for food (namely meat), keeping pets and zoo animals and animals research.
DeGrazia transcends over the two most principal ethical theories in this field: Utilitarianism and the "strong animal rights view" (mainly advocated by Tom Regan). He applies these theories to the areas in which animals are used above, and also uses the less used "sliding-scale model", a model which assesses the relative treatment of animals based on their cognitive, emotional and social complexity.
By doing so DeGrazia shows us that animals ought to be considered, and that there is more than one way of doing so.
Anyone interested in the animal rights debate, whether for or against, or someone endeavouring to start reading literature on animal ethics, you should read this book.
|
|
|
|