Book Description

Like wolf restoration activities in the West, the proposal to reintroduce wolves into the Adirondacks has generated intense public debate. The idea of returning top predators to settled landscapes raises complicated questions on issues ranging from property rights to wildlife management to obligations to present and future generations.

Wolves and Human Communities brings together leading thinkers and writers from diverse fields-including Timothy Clark, Daniel Kemmis, L. David Mech, Mary Midgley, Ernest Partridge, Steward T.A. Pickett, Joseph Sax, Rodger Schlickeisen, and others-to address the complex ethical, biological, legal, and political concerns surrounding wolf reintroduction. Contributors specifically explore the social, cultural, and ecological values that come into play in the debate, as they examine:

• the views of stakeholders in the Adirondack decision
• historical trends in public perception of restoration
• the legal and policy context for species preservation, and the challenges to the current system of property law
• biological and political lessons learned from Yellowstone, Isle Royale, and the Great Lakes states
• the meaning of wildness, both in ourselves and the wolf

The final chapter by Niles Eldredge takes the point of view of evolutionary time and ecological scale, challenging us to develop a new consciousness regarding our position in the natural world.

Wolves and Human Communities offers a thought-provoking examination of interactions between human and wild communities, and represents an important contribution to debates over species reintroduction for policymakers, researchers, ecologists, sociologists, lawyers, ethicists, philosophers, and local residents. ... Read more

Reviews (2)

Thought provoking
An excellent book for those interested not only in wolf conservation, but for those interested in the ongoing debate over the role of humans in the natural community. The various authors each bring in uniqe perspectives and ideas about what should and should not be human responsibilites towards shaping the ecosystems we live in. I was impressed with the great variety of opinions and ideas that are in this book regarding wolf conservation. This book definitely made me think about my ethical, social, and political values and will no doubt continue to help shape these values in the future when I re-read the essays in here.

Informative commentary by leading contributors and experts
Wolves And Human Communities: Biology, Politics, And Ethics is a compendium of informative commentary by leading contributors and experts in the field of wolf restoration activities in the American west. These essays address complex ethical, biological, legal, and political concerns surrounding wolf reintroduction. The contributors specifically comment on the social, cultural, and ecological values that are a part of the on-going national debate. Specially addressed are the views of stakeholders in the Adirondack decision; historical trends in public perception of wolf restoration; the legal and policy context for species preservation; biological and political lessons gleaned from the Yellowstone, Isle Royal, and Great Lakes states wolf restoration experiments; and the meaning of wilderness in both humans the wolves. Wolves And Human Communities is a seminal, significant, highly recommended contribution that will be greatly appreciated by environmental and animal rights activists, ecologists, as well as wolf population and habitat restorationists. ... Read more

Book Description

The first book on language and nonhuman oppression--and the most progressive animal-rights book to date--Animal Equality shows that deceptive, biased words sustain injustice toward nonhuman animals. Speciesism (prejudice against nonhuman animals) survives through lies. Animal Equality's compelling evidence of nonhuman thought and emotion debunks language that characterizes other animals as unreasoning or insensitive. Vivid descriptions of hunting, sportfishing, zoos, aquaprisons, vivisection, and food-industry captivity and slaughter reveal the cruelty that misleading words legitimize and conceal. Animal Equality also uncovers the speciesist attitudes and practices underlying much sexist and racist language. Every animal--nonhuman or human--deserves equal consideration and protection, Joan Dunayer argues. Offering pronoun, vocabulary, and style guidelines, she proposes new language that will bring us closer to nonhuman liberation. ... Read more

Reviews (4)

Language is powerful
Joan Dunayer compellingly argues that the cruel treatment of nonhuman animals (in vivisection, entertainment, sport, rearing/slaughter for food consumption, etc.) is often masked by the euphemisms we employ. We are all familiar with our tendency to call the flesh of dead cow "beef," but Dunayer digs deeper and calls for an end to other common practices that undermine the individuality and unique personality of each and every nonhuman animal that exists. "Wildlife management" groups facilitate hunting. "Animal welfare committees" often oversee research in which countless nonhumans are blinded, subjected to burns, and killed. Zoos market themselves as "wildlife conservationists," imprisoning sentient beings in cages and tanks, depriving them of natural stimuli, and driving them to repetitive and self-destructive behaviors.

Dunayer dispels the myth that language separates humans from nonhumans. Two of her many examples include Alex the African gray parrot who can count, identify objects, and convey fear and sorrow (all using human English), and Washoe the chimpanzee who learned American Sign Language then spontaneously taught it to her son.

The author draws analogies between the current treatment of nonhumans and past abuses of human slaves and women. (At one time both human slaves and women were not considered "persons," much like nonhumans today.) Words like emancipation and abolitionist are resurrected and applied to a cause just as worthy of our concern and immediate action.

The book incorporates a handy thesaurus of words that can be used as alternatives to speciesist terms (e.g. use "flesh" or "muscle" instead of "meat," use "captor" or "keeper" instead of "caretaker") as well as style guidelines for countering speciesism (e.g. use the term animals to include all creatures, human and nonhuman, with a nervous system; avoid expressions that elevate humans above other animals, such as human kindness, the rational species, the sanctity of human life).

This book is a very important building block in making the world a better place for everyone.

An Important Book
We use words not only to inform -- but to deceive and retain our biases. This important book shows how we use words to cover-up and desensitize ourselves to our abuse and cruelty toward other species. It shows how our use language to support our attitudes toward non-human animals as being things or "tools." Dunayer also compares our speciesist language with our expressions of gender bias -- we use the term "mankind" for humankind and "lower" animals for all but humans.

Even people who are sensitive to our more obvious speciesist epithets (like the use of "animal" or "subhuman" to refer to bad actions and "pig" to refer to human sloppiness) and our use of impersonal pronouns when referring to non-humans -- even such sensitized people might still find themselves not exactly "off the hook" (also speciesist).

The book includes a useful thesaurus of speciesist terms and substitute, preferred expressions, as well as a list of style guidelines.

Although this is not a book that one can read in one sitting, it is an important work for both people who care about our treatment and "use" of animals as well as those who care about how we use language.

Brilliant!! A Much Needed Book
This book is a MUST read!! Read it and "mind your bees and shrews."

Is shooting a human also an act of kindness?
Animal Equality masterfully delves into the deep-seated bias the English language contains concerning nonhuman animals. Dunayer crosses many different areas of animal exploitation to show how our language is manipulated to erase the individuality of individuals, remove the space from which empathy can naturally develop, and to justify immoral and cruel actions. This book is a great resource for open minded people and linguists who wish to delve deeper into how the language we use shapes our own reality. Dedicated to 'all nonhuman animals', Animal Equality is one big step towards a kinder and more compassionate future; a future void of Speciesism. Learn how the use of simple words like, animal, reinforces our exploitation of nonhuman animals by reading this book. ... Read more

Reviews (2)

A Call for Christian Compassion
Once again, Dr. Andrew Linzey has delivered a wonderful and inspiring appeal for Christians and peoples of every faith to embrace the highest virtue - EMPATHY. He proclaims that a heightened sense of empathy brings us closer to God and permits us to live in harmony with one another and all of creation. A commitment to jump off our "human" pedestal and experience the wonders and beauty of God's creation in a humble and respectful manner is the true essence of Spirituality. "Animal Gospel" is a truly enlightening exposition.

A Gospel for All Creatures
Andrew Linzey is often called the chaplain of the animal rights movement, but that is hardly fair. The title, "chaplain," suggests someone who gives a bit of moral advice or adds some solemnity to a public occasion. Linzey does much more than that. For many years, he has been developing one of the most creative and constructive Christian theological projects. He is a systematic thinker in the sense that he examines and transforms every aspect of Christian doctrine from the perspective of compassion for animals. Yet he also is faithful and consistent in his appropriation of the Christian tradition. Indeed, he manages to recover aspects of Christianity of which even the most faithful are frequently unaware. I have often taught Linzey's earlier book, Animal Theology, in a college course, and that book is pitched at a slightly higher level than this one. But this book, Animal Gospel, is his most passionate and engaging work yet. If you are interested in what Christian theologians say about the animal rights movement, this is the one book to get. Linzey blends the theoretical and the practical in a comprehensive vision of what it means to be a Christian, not just what it means to be an animal rights activist. If you read this book, your views of Christianity will be changed as much as your views of animals. My only problem with Linzey is that sometimes he is too quick to use the language and assumptions of the animal rights movement, but the more I read of him, the more I realize that he uses the rhetoric of rights as a strategy to best implement the compassionate ideal of Christian faith. There is a growing movement among theologians to talk not just about the environment or nature but also about our specific obligations to animals, and we owe this movement to Linzey's pioneering work. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

Another ground-breaker!! But can you handle the truth?
Dr. Greek has again put forth the most powerful, insightful, and rational reference work in the scope of human health issues. What entities control the way you approach disease and illness, its treatments, and the prevention of it? Here you will find overwhelmingly documented sources and information on how we can finally equip ourselves to understand why Americans have one of the world's worst health records while simultaneously spending more than any other country on 'treatment'. Where is so much of our money being wasted and whom is pocketing the rest? Can you really handle the truth? You can allocate many, many years researching and trying to uncover the answers on your own and still come up far short, or you can save several tens of thousands of dollars and invest less than [price] in an advanced compilation of documentation, which is written, by the way, in lay person's terms. Your co-workers or friends will never return this book to you if you lend it out though---it is that good, I'll attest to this, as I am on my third copy.

Specious Science exposes animal model's fundamental flaws
Finally, an antidote to the incessant and self-serving claims of the animal research industry!

Specious Science excels in at least three areas. First, it's a great primer in the fundamental tenets of sound science. Second, it shows how animal-modelled research fails to meet these basic requirements in theory and in practice. Third, it explains how human-focused medical research, which competes with animal experiments for funding, is superior in its scientific rigor, relevancy, and predictive value.

How many times have we heard that a mouse is the "best" model for studying human disease? One look at a mouse should make you skeptical. The Greeks probe deeper and investigate significant differences between humans and animals at the cellular, sub-cellular, and molecular levels - the arenas in which both the agents of and treatments for disease operate. They explain how small interspecies differences in genetic layout lead to substantial divergences in responses among species. In other words, Evolution 101! The animal model, no matter how strenuous or creatively its proponents argue otherwise, fails this lesson.

"Best animal model" is a fairly meaningless term. Extrapolating from one species to another is fated to be inexact and misleading. Our "hit rate" for medical discoveries is higher in every other type of scientifically-grounded medical research, and for this reason, as the book points out, money squandered on the crude and antiquated animal model harms humans.

Specious Science should be required reading for any life science major, or anyone interested in how charities and the Federal Government spends their health research dollars.

Crystal Therapy, Pyramid Power and Faith Healing.
Those with a vested interest frequently claim that biomedical research using animals is a necessary evil. Specious Science demonstrates that those who make such claims have wandered from the fact-based rationality that drives real science.

The Greeks use current knowledge of genetics and evolution to explain why animal-modeled science should be viewed with the same skepticism that most educated people view crystal therapy, pyramid power, and faith healing.

Once they have presented a theory for why members of other animal species are not productive models of human disease, the Greeks go on to examine the evidence and demonstrate that their theory is sound. Using the history of medical advancement as their test bed, the authors look at the record and debunk the claims we have all heard about animal research being the source of all cures - claims made by the vested interests that turn out to be spin-doctoring and myth.

With much scholarship and research, the Greeks have uncovered the roots and behind-the-scenes stories of the discoveries that have changed medicine through time into a science. They explain the lost chances and delays that a faith in the animal model has repeatedly caused. They expose the fatal catastrophes that have resulted when scientists have chosen to value animal data over human, and they have explained the surprising histories of the medical miracles that have arisen from doctors trying to help human patients.

The book also points out recent breakthroughs and advances in medicine that are stemming from human biology, genetics, epidemiology, chemistry, physics, and mathematics. We learn that computers are screening chemicals at astonishing rates and predicting their efficacy and toxicity as drugs at a rate and degree of accuracy that will embarrass everyone with a stake in the archaic practice of animal experimentation.

Together, Specious Science and their earlier work, Sacred Cows and Golden Geese, present a cogent and compelling argument that explains why animal experiments continue and why they continue to retard real medicine progress and result in continued human suffering.

Anyone wishing to understand the science of medicine and the debate surrounding the theory of animal models will find this book essential reading. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Biological experimentation, writes science journalist Deborah Rudacille, has long been the province of a scientific elite that has not much cared to explain its work to the larger public. That public, she continues, has responded with a kind of don't-ask, don't-tell policy "whereby society will permit animal experimentation--and certain types of research on human subjects--as long as it is protected from the details." With the rise of the Animal Liberation Movement and PETA, however, that unstated policy has increasingly come into question, and research scientists have found it ever more difficult to employ animals (or humans, for that matter) in their work.

In her engaged and illuminating study of these clashing sensibilities, Rudacille ponders troubling questions. Does an elevation in the moral status of animals, she asks, necessarily mean degradation in the moral status of human beings? (Certainly, she responds, this appears to have been the case under Nazi Germany.) Is the killing of laboratory animals--nearly 10,000 in the case of the Salk vaccine against polio--justifiable in the face of the human lives that can be saved?Is it ethical to use the mentally ill as research subjects in studies that may yield cures for their illness? Philosophical landmines surround every attempt at an answer, and Rudacille takes pains to consider all sides of these and kindred issues.Her thoughtful work should provoke reflection and discussion.--Gregory McNamee ... Read more

Reviews (3)

the scalpel rules
Here's a book that at first glance showed great promise in delivering an objective, unbiased history of animal research versus the animal protection movement. The complimentary blurb by Elizabeth Marshall Thomas and the Humane Society representative on the back cover convinced me to buy it. But the more I read, the more I realized that this author has an agenda, and that is to convince readers that animal experimentation is necessary for the advancement of knowledge and the benefit of humans; that science is making great strides in treating lab animals more humanely and using less of them through the cutesily named "Three R's" (which she wrongly attributes not to the considerable efforts of animal rights groups but to the scientists themselves, who claim they're changing to non-animal models for practical, not ethical reasons); and that groups such as PETA and the ALF are making the situation worse, not better (as she puts it, ". . . the antics of PETA and its imitators seem to be eroding the once formidable support of Americans for animal advocacy.") That truth is that if it weren't for PETA and ALF and other groups, the mainstream wouldn't even be aware of institutionalized and corporate animal abuse. To add insult to injury, she also talks about a scientist who almost didn't become a scientist because of her ethical qualms about killing animals for research. But in the interests of her career, she forces herself to harden her emotions and ignore her scruples, and now she's apparently chopping up animal body parts with the best of 'em. This story is presented as a personal victory for the scientist.

There's also an entire chapter called "Nazi Healing" that deals with the racism, devotion to natural health and a clean environment, eugenics, human experimentation, and antivivisection movement of 30s Germany, an apparent attempt by the author to relate that era to what's going on now, in our "postmodern" world (BTW, she uses the word "postmodern" ad nauseum). And she talks at length about the rumor that Hitler was a vegetarian, as if that fact alone would discredit vegetarianism and the animal advocacy movement. Coretta Scott King, Mahatma Gandhi, Leonardo da Vinci, Albert Einstein, and many others are/were also vegetarians. All sorts of people, good, bad, and in between, don't eat meat, for all kinds of reasons.

Despite my serious reservations about this book, it does provide a good overview of the history of animal advocacy versus animal experimentation, and despite its heavy subject and obvious slant, is written in a compelling style that makes you want to read on. It is truly unfortunate that Ms. Rudacille could not keep her personal feelings out of it, or it would have been a more valuable resource.

A Good Overview
For those who are interested in a general overview of the controversy and politics over vivisection, Rudacille's book is pretty good. Surely the book does not profess to change your mind on this issue, but it is hard to read through the book without recognizing where the author stands. I find it to be a problem for those who may have only recently considered this issue. This book really does not provide much moral discussion for the reader to weigh the arguments, I think that many people who may not be versed in the moral issues may simply grow to adopt the author's position after reading the book, which is: "Vivisection is a necessary evil. We definitely should continue using animals, but we certainly should make it as less evil as possible." I'm not sure if writing the book with this slant is appropriate for a book that professes to provide a historical analysis (surely I recognize that many historical works are written with slants). I think it would be a much more valuable work if it paid more attention to and presented the philosophical/moral debates in a historical perspective. However don't get me wrong, I think people who are interested in vivisection should definitely get this book for it provides many insights that I believe to be quite interesting.

Beautifully written but strays from the topic
The prose in this book makes it a pleasure to read. Ms. Rudacille tells fasinating stories in illustrating her subject. I am not sure when I last read such a beautifully written book. I am jealous of her writing skills!

Unfortunately, I have two complaints. First, Ms. Rudicille buys completely in to the fantasy perpetuated by the scientific establishment that animal research has benefited mankind. Since she is attempting to write a balanced story of the pro and anti-vivesection movements, I would have liked for her not to have so readily accepted the standard dogma promoted by those who earn their livings from animal experimentation that we would all be dead were it not for the marvels discovered by injecting dogs, cats, rats, chimps, etc with all nature of compounds. Even a limited review of the scientific literature rapidly illustrates the fallacies of the animal experimentation lobby.

Secondly, about two thirds of the way through the book, the author leaves her subject and addresses post modernistic philopsphy. I kept waiting for her to bring it back to the title topic, that is the history of animal experimentation, but she never tied it together to my satifaction.

Jean Greek, DVM Co-author of Sacred Cows and Golden Geese ... Read more

Book Description

Good News for All Creation notes that plant-based diets reflect the love, compassion, and peace of Christ, and they constitute good, responsible stewardship of God's Creation. Using traditional Christian teachings, the authors make a compelling case that, if Jesus were among us today, he would choose to be vegetarian. ... Read more

Book Description

The controversy over the use of primates in research admits of no easy answers. We have all benefited from the medical discoveries of primate research--vaccines for polio, rubella, and hepatitis B are just a few. But we have also learned more in recent years about how intelligent apes and monkeys really are: they can speak to us with sign language, they can even play video games (and are as obsessed with the games as any human teenager). And activists have also uncovered widespread and unnecessarily callous treatment of animals by researchers (in 1982, a Silver Spring lab was charged with 17 counts of animal cruelty). It is a complex issue, made more difficult by the combative stance of both researchers and animal activists.

In The Monkey Wars, Deborah Blum gives a human face to this often caustic debate--and an all-but-human face to the subjects of the struggle, the chimpanzees and monkeys themselves. Blum criss-crosses America to show us first hand the issues and personalities involved. She offers a wide-ranging, informative look at animal rights activists, now numbering some twelve million, from the moderate Animal Welfare Institute to the highly radical Animal Liberation Front (a group destructive enough to be placed on the FBI's terrorist list). And she interviews a wide variety of researchers, many forced to conduct their work protected by barbed wire and alarm systems, men and women for whom death threats and hate mail are common. She takes us to Roger Fouts's research center in Ellensburg, Washington, where we meet five chimpanzees trained in human sign language, and we visit LEMSIP, a research facility in New York State that has no barbed wire, no alarms--and no protesters chanting outside--because its director, Jan Moor-Jankowski, listens to activists with respect and treats his animals humanely. And along the way, Blum offers us insights into the many side-issues involved: the intense battle to win over school kids fought by both sides, and the danger of transplanting animal organs into humans.

"As it stands now," Blum concludes, "the research community and its activist critics are like two different nations, nations locked in a long, bitter, seemingly intractable political standoff....But if you listen hard, there really are people on both sides willing to accept and work within the complex middle. When they can be freely heard, then we will have progressed to another place, beyond this time of hostilities." In The Monkey Wars, Deborah Blum gives these people their voice. ... Read more

Reviews (4)

well-balanced and makes an important statement
Whatever side of the vivisection debate you are on, this book is worth reading and paying attention to. "The Monkey Wars" calls attention to the need for discussion and understanding between researchers and animal-rights activists - something that is rarely happening. Intolerance, she shows, is leading to much suffering - both human and animal - and it is rife among both communities.

The idea that scientists who experiment on animals are all foaming-at-the-mouth maniacs, cackling and eager to cause suffering with their array of sharp instruments may occasionally be nearly true (see the sections on Harry Harlow). But Blum's book says that the majority of vivisectionists are dedicated to working for the good of people - at the cost of other animals (in this case, non-human primates). They believe this is fully acceptable - humans take priority and we must do what we can to help our own. Here lies the real debate - what gives us the right to inflict this suffering on these animals for the 'good' of mankind? What makes it acceptable? And how much good does it really do us, anyway?

Animal rights activists generally think it's NOT accaptable, and many doubt that much of it has any merit after all (see the chapter on baboon-human organ transplants). They (we) have a horrible reputation amongst researchers, so much so that at the first mention of 'animal rights' causes many of these people to close their ears and eyes and hum a silly tune until it's all over. While there HAVE been cases of pointless destruction and horrible threats to researchers in 'defense' of lab animals, the majority of animal activists are peaceful, reasonable people who want to ease suffering - including that of humans - not cause more.

Through a series of articles about and interviews with a whole spectrum of people involved, Blum shows us both sides of this sometimes hopeless 'debate' - and she does show us some hope as well. There are people on either side of the fence willing to listen and work with those who may not see things in exactly the same light. What's important, "The Monkey Wars" shows, is that we all be willing to listen to and consider others' arguments before making assumptions about the intentions of 'the other side'. This may not solve the entire debate and wipe out all suffering on earth - but it's a step in the right direction.

a generally even-handed treatment
Overall, an excellent book. I couldn't put it down once I started reading it. My only complaint is that the author might a bit too uncritically accept vivisectors' claims about the human payoffs of their research. Near the end she does briefly discuss some of the failures of animal research and the cost that has been paid in terms of human suffering and death, but much of her earlier discussion is not informated by the latter.

Primate People Protection
I was told about this book by a friend who has witnessed the horrors of the bushmeat trade in central Africa,especially the unsustainable slaughter of the great apes and monkeys of the region.Although the situations in Africa are tragic and cruel,they pale in significance with the circumstances that the same creatures find themselves in all around the world and especially in the USA.I am refering to the cruel use of such intelligent creatures as apes and monkeys in experimentation facilities.If you have heard about the cruelty in such facilities and thought you knew enough about it ,this book is a MUST READ.In a non-biased way the author has given the reader an insight into the sadistic and unattached attitude that the handlers at these facilities have towards their prey victims.The realisation that 'human-beings' can knowingly inflict such senseless(in many cases) and unbearable procedures on imprisoned animals is a disgrace to all of the human race and especially the capital of the 'free world',the USA.Thank goodness for the good guys who sacrifice much and sometimes everything in their quest for humane treatment of the apes and monkeys.They lend a sense of sanity and a branch of hope for the future eradication of this disgusting human occupation.The book is really a great catalyst in spurring one on to join the crusade to battle with,overpower,and defeat the individuals and organisations who profit from such ventures and eradicate this evil for once and for all.

Communication is Key for the Monkey
This book is an invaluable learning tool and reference source for anyone interested in helping primates used in research,or hoping to eventually eliminate their use. Blum makes it clear that not all primate researchers are monsters (though some are!) and that vilification of, rather than communicaton with "the other side" can hinder progress towards a kinder medical world.

I write from an animal advocacy perspective. I believe, however, that Blum makes a similar point to those who support research - she helps to dispel the myth that all animal advocates are unreasonable fanatics.

Yes, her book was hard to read in one or two places; I found the descriptions of repetitive, superfluous, studies on infant abuse particularly upsetting. But they are important for animal advocates to know about. For the most part, however, The Monkey Wars read like a fascinating scientific novel. I couldn't put it down. ... Read more

Book Description

A highly topical survey of human's treatment of animals. Each year billions of animals are poisoned, dissected, displaced, killed for consumption, or held in captivity to be discarded as soon as their utility to humans has waned. The animal world has never been under greater peril. A broad-ranging collection of essays, Animal Geographies contributes to a much-needed, fundamental rethinking about our relation to animals. Animal Geographies explores the diverse ways in which animals shape the formation of human identity, looking, for example, at the racialization and gendering of animal images. From questions of identity and subjectivity, it moves to consideration of the places where people and animals confront the realities of coexistence on an everyday basis. It then examines the ways in which animals figure in the ongoing globalization of production and mass consumption, and finally, takes up legal and ethical approaches to human-animal relations. Animal Geographies compels a profound rethinking of the history of our relations with animals and offers a series of proposals for reconstituting this relationship on a progressive basis. ... Read more

Reviews (2)

wonderful
this is an awesome book, i found it in the library while i was doing a report on vegetarianism. i am already a vegetarian, but this book convinced me to go vegan and i have been doing so successfully so far. tons of info on animal rights and what is being done about it, on vegetarian diets, and environmental concerns of meateating on the environment. a wonderful book.

First Rate, Very Interesting, Informative.
I bought this book on a whim and found myself totally absorbed. If you are interested in the politics and issues facing the vegetarian and animal advocacy movement today this should be your handbook- it's mine. ... Read more

Book Description

Book Description

This timely and provocative book examines the theories behind the most commonly held contemporary assumptions about animal rights. Focusing on the writings of prominent pro-liberation activists such as Peter Singer, Tom Regan and Mary Midgley, Michael P. T. Leahy argues that the animal rights movement is based upon a series of fundamental misconceptions about the basic nature of animals--beliefs which define them rationally, emotionally, and morally in too human terms. Leahy gives particular emphasis to the writings of Ludwig Wittgenstein and his highly influential philosophy of language, and concludes that much of our talk about animals is dangerously anthropomorphic and encourages us to elevate them to quasi-human status. He examines such crucial issues as animal experimentation, the use of animals for food and fur, animals in captivity and vegetarianism. ... Read more

Reviews (15)

A for effort, F for acheivement
I rate this book as two stars rather than one because the author has at least made an effort at producing a philosophical justification for his pro-exploitative position, however incoherently this is argued.

The author considers that it is the presence of language that give humans sufficient self awareness to have moral rights, and that all animals lack this awareness. The authors arguments are however incoherent, rambling and very hard to understand even for a reader such as myself with some understanding of philosophy.

The author displays woeful ignorance not only of recent studies into the philosophy of mind, but in modern linguistics - surprising for somebody whose arguments stand or fall on linguistic premises. The presence of language-less human adults (as recounted by Steven Pinker in "the language instinct")counters Leahey's arguments. Such humans presumably can be expoited at will according to Leahey's logic. Yet once these people had been taught language, all had a great deal to say about their experiences as languageless humans, and all showed that they had a high level of self awareness.

His arguments are not only rambling and incoherent, but often contradict themselves. When arguing for the continuation of fox hunting for example, the author uses the argument both that foxes are vermin that should be wiped out, and that hunting helps in the conservation of foxes! He is obviously confused.

If you want a book that will provide a well reasoned argument to continue with exploitative practices regarding animals, then I suggest you look elsewhere. In my opinion the philosophical case for animal liberation has been won. The best arguments against liberation come from Michael Fox and Roger Frey. And it should be noted that even these arguments failed to convince their authors as they later came over to the animal liberation side.

Appaling.
"Reviewer: A reader from Boston
I just want to register my support for this book. I think that animals should be freely killed, eaten, and processed into useful products for humans. We need many more books like this one in our day."

That was a review from another reader. They gave it 5 stars by the way. I hope he finds these useful products to be what they are- unneeded. Meat is full of cholesterol, saturated fat, meat eaters are altogether unhealthier than non-meateaters. It is disgusting, their arrogance towards other living creatures. You have no right to use, exploit, torture or kill another animal for your own benefit.

We need many more books like this
I just want to register my support for this book. I think that animals should be freely killed, eaten, and processed into useful products for humans. We need many more books like this one in our day.

He stinks
Facsism and self-interested lordship over sentient creatures is all this [author] is intersted in.

What is this man thinking?
I cannot believe anyone can support murder like Leaky does! ... Read more

Book Description

This book brings together diverse approaches to animal welfare, from philosophy through scientific study and measurement, to the implemenation of practical solutions to real problems. ... Read more

Book Description

No matter where you live, you can help animals in so many ways that take neither time nor money--just knowledge and consideration.Carla Bennett, kindness consultant for PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and regular columnist for Animal Times, will answer your questions about coexisting peacefully with animals in all sorts of situations, whether it's finding an animal-free cosmetic, making peace with your wild animal neighbors, traveling with your pet, or choosing the best animal organization for you. ... Read more

Reviews (4)

Help Those Who Have No Voice
In a Q & A format, Carla Bennet addresses issues that include coexisting with our animal "neighbours", cruelty free shopping, how to stop animal testing, uncovering the so called "sport" hunting myths and so much more.You'll find practical ideas about how you can help in ways that don't require a lot of time or money.No matter where you live, you can help animals in so many ways.

A "Must-Have" for Every Type of Animal Lover!
There are so many things to love about this fact-filled animal companion's guide!As a mother, teacher and lifetime animal lover, I feel Bennett's "Living in Harmony With Animals" is a goldmine of indispensibleinformation relating to the comfort and well-being of all creatures greatand small. Bennett covers the gamut, from making your yardanimal-friendly to keeping animal rights issues alive in the media.

It'salso entertaining to read about my favorite celebrities and how activelyinvolved they are in protecting our four-legged friends!Many of these bignames share heartwarming, personal experiences with us, as well as adorablephotos from their private albums.

This book is an absolute"must-have" for anyone having a special place in their heart foranimals!

A "Must Have" for Every Activist and Animal Lover
I've been an animal rights activist more than ten years and a former intern for a wildlife rehabilitation center.Yet, I learned more from this little book than I ever thought possible.It's filled with useful datathat can be helpful in writing letters to newspapers and in debating foranimal protection/rights.Bennett writes in a Gandhi-like style -- neverangry or agressive.But the facts she gives us are powerful.Example: Rodeos -- "C. G. Haber, a veterinarian who worked 30 years as a meatinspector in slaughterhouses, saw scores of animals discarded from rodeosand sent to slaughter.Toughened as he was to animal suffering, thecondition of the rodeos' animals sickened him.He described them as 'soextensively bruised that the only areas in which the skin was attached tothe flesh were the head, neck, legs, and belly.' 'I've seen animals, hesaid, 'with six to eight ribs broken from the spine and at times puncturingthe lungs.I've seen as much as two to three gallons of free bloodaccumulated under the detached skin.'" (This should convince even themost calloused rodeo fan that rodeos ARE inhumane).

Bennett hasfacts and data EVERYONE can use.There's info on where to stay whentravelling with your pets, charities that aren't charitable to animals, howstudents can refuse to dissect animals in school, what to do aboutunwelcome wildlife "guests" in your home, and so much more.Icould go on and on. I can't say enough good about this book. This one isterrific!

My Animal Rights Little Bible
I find Carla Bennett's "Living in Harmony with Animals" very inspirational and helpful. It speaks from the heart and will reach many hearts too as it did mine! It's the perfect book to give a friend who lovesanimals but often doesn't know where to turn for answers on many issuesconcerning them. It's right there in that book!I also like the variouspictures of Animal Rights' activists, the vegetarian recipes and also theinternational resources available to help animals,in the last pages of thebook. Bennett's book becomes my secret weapon to continue my Animal Rightsactivism. Claudine Erlandson Seattle, WA ... Read more

Book Description

"Putting Humans First passionately argues for the primacy of human life in the natural world and the corresponding justice of humans making use of animals; it disputes the concept of animal rights and animal liberation. It shows human beings to be very much a part of nature (though not, ordinarily, of the wilds), which, given their nature, they not only may but ought to put to their best use." ... Read more

Reviews (4)

a serious disappointment from a not very serious philosopher
Writings criticizing our treatment of non-human animals - in agribusiness, the fashion industry and in research labs - are being published at an astounding rate. Since defenses of the status quo regarding animal use have not been as forthcoming, Machan's book is a welcome, but disappointing, contribution to the debates.

Machan argues that the idea of animal rights is "a fiction" and "a trick." This is because a being has rights - it is wrong to harm it for pleasure or even serious benefits - only if it has a "moral nature," i.e., a "capacity" to see the difference between right and wrong and choose accordingly (pp. xv, 10). Machan says humans are of that "kind" and animals are not and so concludes that humans have rights and animals have none.

But these arguments are imprecise: true, only humans have this capacity, but only some humans, not all. Thus, his theory of rights seems to provide no protection for vulnerable humans who are not moral agents and so lack the moral nature he describes.

Machan disagrees: he argues that, contrary to appearances, human babies and severely mentally challenged individuals do not "lack moral agency altogether" (p. 16) and thus they have rights on his theory. To see this, however, he says that we must consider them as they would exist "normally, not abnormally" and focus on the "healthy cases, not the special or exceptional ones" (p. 16; cf. pp. 38, 40). Apparently, Machan thinks that since "normal" human beings are moral agents, abnormal humans are moral agents as well. But this inference is clearly illegitimate: while exceptional humans' characteristics include some properties they share with normal humans (e.g., being biologically human), it is not true that, in general, all features of normal beings are shared by abnormal beings: e.g., quadriplegics and cancer patients are in their unfortunate conditions even though normal, healthy humans - whom they share much with - are not.

So, in the absence of arguments to the contrary, the fact that normal humans are moral agents does not make abnormal humans moral agents. Thus, they do not meet Machan's necessary condition for rights; his defense of the rights of vulnerable humans fails and thereby so does his argument that animals have no moral rights. His criticism of one implausible theory of rights - that if someone merely has an interest in something, then he or she has a right to that thing - does little to defend his position either.

Machan's other main argument against animal rights is surprising. He claims that if animals have the right to not be harmed at the hands of moral agents, then they also have that right against "politically incorrect" animals who, as he repeatedly observes throughout the book, are not moral agents (p. 12). He argues that since they don't have that latter right (i.e., animals don't have rights against other animals), they don't have the former right (i.e., they have no rights against us). Basically he suggests that - when it suits our pleasure - it is morally permissible for us to act like some animals and kill other animals. Thankfully Machan does not endorse our imitating some animals by our eating our offspring (or our excrement), but since chickens, pigs, cows, rats, mice, and most primates are primarily vegetarian, they would surely welcome our imitation in that regard.

One important, surprising and encouraging remark might help resolve this ambivalence: Machan suggests that one might be "morally remiss" for not breaking the law to "invade" a neighbor's private property to rescue a cat who was being tortured by the neighbor, the cat's owner (p. 22). If this is Machan's true view, then he clearly does not believe that humans should always come first and the Animal and Earth Liberation Fronts, as well as more moderate animal and environmental advocates, have found an ally in a most surprising place.

This has to be a joke!
This is a hideous display of human idiocy - there is no way that any thinking, reasoning adult could actually hold these views. This simply must have been written as some kind of sick joke - not funny at all.

Finally a book in our own defense
This short but nifty book is a concise defense of human life, with a critique of the muddle of "animal rights" theory and a sharp examination of anti-human environmentalism. Machan successfully demonstrates that the tragedy of the commons plagues nearly all mainstream, let alone extreme, environmentalist policy recommendations. But the most telling point he makes is that animal rights or liberation champions contradict themselves when they implore us to treat animals as if they were just like us and had the rights we all have, while also treating animals as lacking all moral responsibilities. Well, then we are very, very different from other animals, are we not, which accounts for our having rights and their lacking them!

Put humans responsible for these types of trashy books LAST!
In researching the attitudes toward Environmentalism for a school project, I came across repeatedly the folks who claim Environmentalism to be a "religion." Their best friend, Ayn Rand (whom most of my classmates feel was "on something"), and her "logical, pro-man" philosophy of Objectivism are constantly referred to. These are the same people who are trying to pretend that global warming doesn't exist and that the Earth is here for humans to use and abuse. Environmentalists are not "anti-human." We don't oppose the application of scientific discoveries to useful technologies for the advancement of humankind. But man is not supreme! He must revere nature and learn his place on earth. Don't try and tell me that my dog's life is less precious to her than mine is to me! Rights DO NOT have anything to do with the capacity to THINK! It deals more with the obvious fact that any creature with the ability to feel pain (and the subsequent desire to avoid it!) should not be caused unncessary suffering. Humans do not have the right to test on animals in laboratories in cruel, useless experiments. They DO NOT have ANY right to "farm" their fellow creatures for the sake of vanity; wearing fur is a blatant evil and I can't see how anyone can possibly make an argument for it. Yet these people try. It's sickening. They don't even believe in the religious aspect of it all! They simply think they're above the other species. Compassion to every breathing, sentient creature is the mark of a good person. The mistreatment and exploitation of animals in our society is appalling; yet these people are more disgusted with the attempts to deliver animals from suffering and save the planet, etc. etc., than from the repulsive cruelty itself! The "crazy fanatics" are those who waste their time arguing that animals cannot think or reason or have moral values at all and therefore don't deserve us to fight for their "rights." If they knew half the studies and observations of animals that demonstrate their extreme similarity to us in so many more ways than they give credit for, they wouldn't be so ignorant. Do I think that domestic animals should no longer exist or that mankind should disappear? Of course not. But should animals be forced to suffer for our benefit while we declare ourselves supreme? Absolutely not. And those who disagree are some of many blights on our society; although, many of them are probably the other blights, as well. Do I feel sorry for the fur-wearers, trophy hunters, meat-lovers, etc. etc. who are "terrorized" by animal rights activists? Not a chance. I feel sorry for the animals who suffer undeservingly. They have the unalienable right to a decent life. The callous choice of a human to strip an animal of those rights and its rightful life, in my mind, should be cause to take away that person's rights. To understand the truths about animals and animal rights is important; no fluffed-up myths from either side must be taken. But there is no escaping the fact that it's unethical to treat animals the way we do...and it happens every single day. It's books like this that feed peoples' minds with more of the reassuring yet evil falsehoods they want to hear:

"Your kind is all that matters. It's perfectly all right for the 'lower' animals to be made to suffer for you and your family. As long as Almighty Man is prospering, the conditions of the Earth and its inhabitants that were here before you-but don't matter as much as you-are irrelevant."

It's a darned shame. ... Read more

Book Description

This book offers a comprehensive overview of the legislation and the issues surrounding animals, from laws concerning both domesticated and wild animals to the regulatory agencies that administer them, and the groups that fight for the proper treatment of animals. Entries include dolphins, kosher slaughter, patenting animals, fur farming, hunting, Marine Mammal Protection Act, vivisection, Liberation Front, zoos, and more. Other coverage focuses on landmark legal cases and such well-known figures in the animal rights movement as Cleveland Amory and Ingrid Newkirk. Includes bibliography and index. ... Read more

Book Description

Tom Regan, universally recognized as the intellectual leader of the animal rights movement, presents a historically important, multifaceted discussion of some responses to the question, "Do animals have rights?"

More than a contest of wills representing professional and economic interests, the animal rights debate is also a divisive, enduring topic in normative ethical theory. Addressing key issues in this sometimes acrimonious debate, Regan responds thoughtfully to his critics while dismantling the conception that "all and only" human beings are worthy of the moral status that is the basis of rights.

In a set of essays that reflects his thinking on animal and human rights over the past decade, Regan sketches the philosophical positions espoused by those who want to abolish animal exploitation, reform it to minimize suffering, or maintain the status quo. He considers the moral grounds for limiting human freedom when it comes to human interactions with nonhuman animals. He puts the issue of animal rights in historical context, drawing parallels between animal rights activism and other social movements, including the antislavery movement in the nineteenth century and the gay-lesbian struggle today. He also outlines the challenges to animal rights posed by deep ecology and ecofeminism to using animals for human purposes and addresses the ethical dilemma of the animal rights advocate whose employer uses animals for research.

Systematically unraveling claims that human beings are rational and therefore entitled to superior moral status, Regan defends the inherent value of all individuals who are "subjects of a life" and decries the speciesism that pretends to separate human from nonhuman animals. Independent of any benefits humans might derive from exploiting animals, Regan shows how, on a philosophical level, there is no sustainable defense for separating human and nonhuman animals as beings of absolute, as opposed to instrumental, value. ... Read more

Reviews (5)

Review: Defending Animal Rights
Defending Animal Rights is a written response to the criticisms of Tom Regan's previous writings and speeches. Regan carefully outlines some of the main arguments against him and the animal rights movement.
Starting with an explanation of historically significant philosophies and their importance to the moral issues raised in the field of animal ethics, Regan displays the foundation for his, as well as other influential philisophers' arguments. He explains the importance of the ideas of direct and indirect duties, perfectionism, traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs, Contractarianism, Kantianism, Utilitarianism, The Rights View, deep ecology, and ecofeminism. Of these moral positions the Utilitarian and the Rights View have provided the clearest stand on the issue of animal rights.
Regan recognizes that in today's debate of these issues the animal rights movement has been condemned in different ways by different groups of people. The main concern of this book is to thoroughly answer these criticisms. Regan states, "My major interest on this occasion is not to defend the movement against false charges but to clarify certain ideas." (p.30) Building off of this statement he displays a humble approach to his critcs.
In clarifying the ideas of the movement, Regan explains his form of Kantiant ethics. This view, in which he includes not just humans, but beings he defines as being "subject to a life" (beings who possess "sensory, cognitive, conative, and volitional capacities" (p.42)), embodies the main basis of his position:

"Harms intentionally done to any one subject cannot be justified by aggregating benefits derived by others. In this respect my position is antiutilitarian, a theory in the Kantian, not the Millian, tradition. Nonetheless, my position parts company with Kant's when it comes to specifying who should be treated with respect. For Kant, only rational, autonomous persons are ends in themselves...whereas on my position all subjects to a life, including all those nonhuman animals who qualify, have equal inherent value." (p.43)

In the above section, Regan's basic position is clearly stated. It is from this point on that the critiques against him become specific. He divides his critics into two major categories. The first being the intramoral, which include Jan Narveson, who critiques Regan for weighing moral intuition too high when discussing inherent value, and not relying on standard moral principles. Regan replies that Narveson's critique is inaccurate. Regan states that when all principles have been considered and weighted against each other two possible outcomes might occur. Thus, the issue of intuition becomes critical. He adds that it is important to be aware of the fact that we can never know if there is only one right theory of morals. The second category of critics is the intermoral. The critics in this category argue against Regan's theory of individual moral rights, stating that there are fundamental flaws in the individual way of perceiving the world. The critics argue that this fundamental view originates in a Western, male dominated, white society filled with prejudice against different groups. Regan replies by saying that although it was men who came up with the concept of individual morals we can't conclude that the idea itself is incorrect. He also states that just because ideas have been previously used in a certain fashion doesn't make the ideas inapplicable in the future. His final reply is that reason and emotion need to balance each other. Emotions in terms of considerations of a group don't need to be excluded in a world focusing on rationality and individuality.
One of the critics that Regan particularly focuses on is Carl Cohen. Cohen's critique is based on a fundamental belief that animals do not have moral rights. He says that all individuals have basic rights and that those rights prevent anyone from using the individual in order to advance the interest of the user. That animals should be included in such a framework, Cohen argues, is a mistake. He argues that non-human animals such as mammals and birds have the ability to reason, but argues that they "are not morally responsible for their actions." (p.73) Cohen bases his arguments on historically great moral philosophers that had contradictory thoughts about many issues but united when it came to the fact that humans were morally unique creatures. Cohen also emphasizes his belief that humans have indirect and direct duties to humans, but differentiates between duties to act humanely and the concept of inherent moral worth. Regan agrees with Cohen on this point, but goes on to explain that Cohen is inconsistent in his argument. Regan suggests that Cohen's argument against rights automatically becomes an argument against duties, which is contradictory to Cohen's stand.
This book attempts to elucidate some of the concerns raised in the animal rights debate as well as Regan's own position. Through responding to criticism, Regan outlines his basic arguments in a way that helps justify his position. There are issues still unsolved in this debate, which he recognizes. There are also issues that Regan consciously decided to exclude from the book. Some of these concerns might have been appropriate to address. What Regan could have focused less on are the last two chapters of the book, which addresses issues of personal integrity as well as the field of moral philosophy. These two chapters are sufficient in some aspects, but also put the author in an artificially produced light trying to make him look like a victim of unfairness. It might be an important issue to integrate into a larger picture, but can easily loose its power when being discussed separately. It places the issue as one of defending Tom Regan instead of defending the rights of animals.
In conclusion, this book is a serious attempt by Regan to justify his ethical philosophy about animal rights. Replying to some of the criticisms he has faced throughout his years as a writer on animal rights, he clarifies his ethical stance and allows for a deeper and more serious discussion in this field.

Interesting, generally well written, profoundly wrong
Regan has followed his seminal work, "The case for animal rights" by more than 15 years with "Defending animal rights". The book is well written and continues his arguments against all forms of animal use towards human ends (no more experimentation, farming or clothing from animals). As he has stated previously, his aim is not larger cages but empty cages. His is a radical abolitionist position.

To make this bold claim Regan must force animals onto the same ground as humans, he must present a morally demanding equivalence between humans and animals. This ought to immediately raise eyebrows, if not hackles, most of us believe that humans are more morally valuable than animals and we do not take kindly to the equivalence of people with pigs, monkeys, rats and so forth. To make the case, Regan argues that animals are, like us, "subjects of a life" with feelings, desires, needs, etc., who can experience pain and happiness. Being "subjects of a life" in this manner, animals have an inherent value that we are duty bound to protect.

It is not easy to define the essence of humanity but I doubt a mish mash of wants, needs, feelings, whatever, captures what it means to be human. Even taking Regan's contention at face value, it is legitimate to wonder how comparable humans and animals really are. Animals lack agency, the ability to change their world for the betterment of themselves and future generations. This ability sets us far apart from the animal world, which has remained static for millennia, while our world has provided incessant cultural growth and technological advance.

To dodge the obvious gulf between animals and us Regan uses those unfortunate members of humanity who are mentally incapacitated to the point where their abilities and senses may be comparable to animals. (Regan does not actually need to use the disabled in this way. Someone who is technically dead, alive only via a respirator with no brain function whatsoever is treated "better" than an animal used and killed for some experimental purposes.) Such unfortunate humans are not treated as a means to an end in the way that animals are. Regan suggests this is a double standard and calls us on it.

Again, however, the gulf between humans and animals comes into play, even in death. When a human being is lost the loss is felt at a social and individual level. The potential that the human being represented to be productive, insightful and to provide a contribution passes with death and we mourn that loss. The loss is, of course, particularly acute for family and close friends who would have had first-hand experience of the actuality of the person's existence and hopes and aspirations for the potential of the deceased. We do violence to the value a human being represented or could have represented if we treat a human instrumentally, even in death.

In contrast, animals never have any potential to do anything greater than their ancestors and direct contemporaries. Animals are not individual because while they may have distinct characteristics they lack the capacity to develop themselves and transform their existence. Animals are also not social because while they may live within groups, they lack the capacity to transform that group's behavior and they cannot take collective decisions within the group. In this sense, the value of animals is fixed such that it is always comparable to any other animal currently living, dead or projected into the future. When an animal dies, unless we have some particular association with the animal such as a pet, we do not mourn the passing because there is nothing to mourn. Animals never have the value that humans retain even when deceased unless we provide some value through a human relation.

Regan pushes the argument for animal rights as far as it will go but although animal rights can appear as a possibility it is really illusory. Animals lack agency such that they will never demand their own rights. This unbridgeable gulf places humans and animals into separate moral spheres with humanity taking the higher platform. Regan fails or refuses to see this but, thankfully, there are not many quite as blind as he.

But he takes their money
Mr. Regan criticizes his University employer for conducting experiments on animals, but continues under this employment and
enjoys the economic gains afforded the University by this
experimentation.

a brilliant collection of essays
In this collection of superbly-written and argued essays, Tom Regan, the leading defender of the moral rights of animals, restates and refines his main arguments that animals, like humans, have the right to be treated with respect and so not used by humans for food, clothing, experimental subjects, or entertainment.

His arguments are strong and simple: if humans have rights (and lets suppose they do), why is this so? What is it about humans that makes them have rights, that makes it wrong to kill them for food, entertainment, etc.? It is very difficult to find plausible answers to those questions that do not imply that animals do not have rights as well. Clearly Regan's critics have not.

Those who challenge the status quo with respect to humanity's treatment of animals will find Regan's essays clear, carefully argued, and revealing of his great insight into moral philosophy and the moral life. Defenders of the status quo--those who think that, by and large, society's treatment of animals is perfectly fine--have their difficult work cut out for them to reveal exactly where Regan's arguments have gone wrong.

They need to explain exactly why, although it's wrong to kill and eat, hunt down, experiment on, or wear non-rational humans (e.g., infants, severly mentally challenged, anecephalics, the brain dead, etc.), it is perfectly OK to do these things to animals who have more advanced mental capacities and the same capacity to suffer.

This is a very difficult challenge. Regan responds to some (although, unfortunately probably not the best) of his critics on these points and shows that their criticisms either just *assume* that animals don't have rights and/or are riddled with argumentative and logical blunders. Regan's critics are advised to take (or re-take) a logic course and learn what it is to "beg the question" and commit the "fallacy of irrelevance" before forming a new attack on Regan's arguments.

Not all of Regan's essays are focused on ethics and animals. One essay, "Ivory Towers Should Not A Prison Make," concerns the challenges (and rewards) that academics, especially philosophers, face when publicly advocating for social change. Politically or socially-active academics will find this essay to reveal great wisdom and insight.

Regan also adopt the role of historian and documents that the objections raised in religious and scientific communities to abolishing slavery and for increasing rights for women, minorities, and homosexuals are very similar to the objections currently raised against the notion of animals having rights. Regan shows that the "Patterns of Resistance" to fair and respectful treatment have been similar in all these "liberation" movements.

There is much in these essays of great wisdom and, often, beauty. They will appeal both to readers who already have an interest in ethics and animals and the animal rights movement. They will also appeal to those who do not have this interest or background, but, hopefully--after reading these essays (and others like them)--soon will.

Not what I wanted
Regan's "The Case for Animal Rights" is pretty strong stuff, and I was hoping this would be a structured defense of objections to that text. This book has some defense in it, but I was looking for something more encompassing and systematic. The book is comprised of several shorter pieces.

It's still good; it's just seem to be enough. ... Read more