![]() ![]() The wrong that has been done is a wrong to you. Then your neighbor has done something wrong, but not to your dog. By way of illustration - suppose your neighbor kicks your dog. Such views may be called indirect duty views. Rather we can do wrong acts that involve animals and so we have duties regarding them though none to them. If we start our thinking in this way we soon find that some people believe that we have no duties directly to animals, that we owe nothing to them that we can do nothing that wrongs them. Then we test the mettle of their ideas by seeing how well they stand up under the heat of fair criticism. How to proceed? We begin by asking how the moral status of animals has been understood by thinkers who deny that animals have rights. Second editionĮnglewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall, 1989 Tom Regan on THE CASE FOR ANIMAL RIGHTS THE CASE FOR ANIMAL RIGHTS By Tom Regan From: ANIMAL RIGHTS AND HUMAN OBLIGATIONSĮdited by Tom Regan and Peter Singer. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |