Animal Rights Without Liberation: Applied Ethics and Human Obligations (Critical Perspectives on Animals) (英語) ハードカバー – 2012/9/16
Kindle 端末は必要ありません。無料 Kindle アプリのいずれかをダウンロードすると、スマートフォン、タブレットPCで Kindle 本をお読みいただけます。
Alasdair Cochrane introduces an entirely new theory of animal rights grounded in their interests as sentient beings. He then applies this theory to different and underexplored policy areas, such as genetic engineering, pet-keeping, indigenous hunting, and religious slaughter. In contrast to other proponents of animal rights, Cochrane claims that because most sentient animals are not autonomous agents, they have no intrinsic interest in liberty. As such, he argues that our obligations to animals lie in ending practices that cause their suffering and death and do not require the liberation of animals.
Cochrane's "interest-based rights approach" weighs the interests of animals to determine which is sufficient to impose strict duties on humans. In so doing, Cochrane acknowledges that sentient animals have a clear and discernable right not to be made to suffer and not to be killed, but he argues that they do not have a prima facie right to liberty. Because most animals possess no interest in leading freely chosen lives, humans have no moral obligation to liberate them. Moving beyond theory to the practical aspects of applied ethics, this pragmatic volume provides much-needed perspective on the realities and responsibilities of the human-animal relationship.
...thoughtful and thought-provoking, making it a welcome and highly recommended addition to personal and academic library Contemporary Ethics reference collections and supplemental reading lists.Midwest Book Review--Midwest Book Review
Well-argued--Political Science Review
Alasdair Cochrane argues that there is a plausible theory of animal rights that allows us to continue to own and use animals. It would be an understatement to say that I disagree with Cochrane but he does a fine job presenting the argument and his book will surely provoke debate and discussion.--Gary L. Francione, Rutgers University
Non-human animals may have morally relevant interests in avoiding suffering and death without also possessing comparable interests in non-interference. By drawing on this neglected insight into the specificity of animals' interests, Cochrane's rigorous yet accessible book exposes a false dichotomy that has divided animal ethicists for decades, making a major advance in our understanding of the subject.--Paula Casal, Universitat Pompeu Fabra
This is the first sustained and comprehensive attempt to base a whole account of animal rights around an interest-based theory of rights, and the first to use such a theory to deny that animals have an intrinsic right to liberty. It dispels once and for all the myth that animal rights must be about condemning all uses of animals and that a failure to do so commits one to an acceptance of an animal welfare ethic.--Robert Garner, University of Leicester
Alasdair Cochrane is lecturer in political theory at The University of Sheffield and the author ofAn Introduction to Animals and Political Theory.
In respect to Regan, Cochrane's work in this book should completely replace his in terms of being the prominent rights theory for animal ethics. That being said, I am still a proponent of Peter Singer's utilitarian approach.
Perhaps part of my acceptance of Cochrane's interest based rights is that it is not all that different from Singer. Singer believes in promoting utility as defined by the increase in sentient beings preferences. Cochrane defines a right as being a sentient being's interest that is strong enough to force duty upon us. Because of this similarity much of the applied ethics work in this book I heavily agree with.
The book has two distinguishable parts, the first is his outlining the theory, then second, he quickly moves on to applying his theory to numerous cases showing that animals have a sufficient right to life and not to suffer, though since they are non-autonomous beings, they have no right to liberty. Essentially, no interest in liberty, no right. His reasoning is valid and should be persuasive to those who can follow complex arguments.
His case for what counts as enough to bring about duty upon us is slightly lacking, though it is tied to the concept of well-being. This again makes me think he's taking Singer's view and developing it into a rights approach. Despite the similarities he does reject a utilitarian argument saying he has no interest in aggregate well-being, though that seems odd since the aggregate is merely the sum of individual's well-being.
All-in-all it was a very good read. Cochrane should be commended for his work, and particularly his humility in respecting the fact that though he believes his arguments sound, there is definitely room for criticism, refinement, and potentially rejection. His work definitely moves forward the debate about animal ethics, and as I said, hopefully removing Regan's view as the prominent animal rights theory. In addition, it could serve as a great guide for determining new political policy in respect to animals and the argumentation in the applied section could convince many of the harms of how we currently treat animals.
Most importantly, I hope this book, and new books like it, move animal activists into more reasoned and critical discourse than currently is popular.