Reviews (1)

A Testament to Eco-Spirituality and Process Theology
This book captures the passion of the environmental movement, and creates a distinct theology that is reconcilable to our Earth. Read it if you are interested in Environmental Justice, the Christian response to the ecological crisis, or animal spirituality. ... Read more

Book Description

Challenging the basic assumptions of a meat-eating society, Deep Vegetarianism is a spirited and compelling defense of a vegetarian lifestyle. Considering all of the major arguments both for and against vegetarianism and the habits of meat-eaters, vegetarians, and vegans alike, Michael Allen Fox addresses vegetarianism's cultural, historical, and philosophical background, details vegetarianism's impact on one's living and thinking, and relates vegetarianism to classical and recent defenses of the moral status of animals.

Demonstrating how a vegetarian diet is related to our awareness of the world and our ethical outlook on life, Fox looks at the different kinds of vegetarian commitments people make and their reasons for making them. In chapters that address such issues as the experiences, emotions, and grounds that are part of choosing vegetarianism, Fox discusses not only good health, animal suffering, and the environmental impacts of meat production, but such issues as the meaning of food, world hunger, religion and spirituality, and, significantly, the links shared between vegetarianism and other human rights movements and ideologies, particularly feminism. In an extensive chapter that addresses arguments made by advocates of meat-eating, Fox speaks to claims of humans as natural carnivores, animals as replaceable, and vegetarians as anti-feminist. He also addresses arguments surrounding the eating habits of indigenous peoples, eating free-range animals, and carnivorous behavior among animals. The most complete examination of the vegetarian outlook to date, Deep Vegetarianism reveals the broad range of philosophical views that contribute to such a choice. It recognizes, and calls for, a conscious awareness of—and an individual responsibility to—the issues that exist in the moral, political, and social spheres of our existence.

With its lively and controversial discussion, Deep Vegetarianism promises to appeal to anyone looking to explore the relationship between dietary choice, lifestyle, the treatment of animals and the environment, and personal ethical responsibility. It will also be particularly useful for students and teachers of moral philosophy, ethics, religion, comparative cultures, ecology, and feminism. ... Read more

Reviews (5)

Review of Michael Allen Fox's Deep Vegetarianism
How would society change if instead of a meat-centered dependency, the world switched to universal vegetarianism? In Deep Vegetarianism, Michael Allen Fox explores the positive benefits if humankind were to become an herbivorous species. Moving to a vegetarian society would help diminish world hunger with better management and use of agricultural land, and would also bring awareness to the unjustifiable way in which the majority of food animals are treated, mainly in factory farm practices. He addresses many arguments for vegetarianism, brings to light opinions against [vegetarianism], as well as relates the vegetarian movement with other political movements and struggles throughout history.
From a vegetarian standpoint this book helps to solidify some aspects that may have previously been murky in making the decision to give up meat. It also introduces many issues that one might not have previously considered before becoming a vegetarian. Deep Vegetarianism may encourage a vegetarian to take their diet a step further to becoming a stricter vegetarian, perhaps by moving to the vegan-type diet (no meat, dairy products, or eggs). Solid arguments for justifying vegetarianism that he explores in depth include: health, animal suffering and death, impartiality or disinterested moral concern, environmental concerns, manipulation of nature, world hunger, interspecies kinship and compassion and universal nonviolence.
When identifying arguments commonly used against vegetarianism Fox includes a list from R.G. Frey's book, Rights, Killing, and Suffering: Moral Vegetarianism and Applied Ethics, that lists significant effects such a shift would have on the world. This list includes: "...collapse of the animal food, leather, and pet food industries; social disruption; and the loss of haute cuisine." He [Fox] takes all of these issues into consideration and comes to the conclusion that, "People would still have to eat, and the opportunities for food production, distribution, processing, packaging, shipping, and sales, as well as commodity trading and new secondary industries, would certainly not evaporate." (p.144)
If one reading this book is a meat-eater he [Fox] strongly encourages the change in dietary habits through becoming a vegetarian or into at least putting more thought into where the food being consumed comes from. He does not directly say that if you eat meat you are a bad person, but rather through informative facts and positive reinforcement about the vegetarian lifestyle, he tries to discourage meat eating as the center of the American as well as world diet. His ultimate idea is for the entire world to adopt a vegetarian lifestyle, but is aware that this could not happen overnight. One issue opposing vegetarianism is, "What would happen to the many millions of animals that had been waiting to be killed and eaten" after universal vegetarianism was accepted by society? He addresses this issue by reiterating the fact that adoption of this idea [universal vegetarianism] would be a gradual process. "...meat-eating would gradually decline as vegetarianism gained adherents, with the net effect that as demand for meat declined, so too would the supply." (p. 146) Fox also explores that there are some cultures in the world that cannot survive without the use of animals. He explains that the Inuit of northern Canada, and Russia's Arctic nomads, the Nenets, are two examples of these cultures. He [Fox] quotes a leader of the Nenets on his beliefs and passion towards the main staple of life in their culture, the reindeer. " 'for us in the tundra, the reindeer are life itself. There is nothing we can do without reindeer. It's our food, our clothing, our transportation and every other necessity. You can't survive without reindeer. A person without reindeer is a nobody' " (p. 160) His response to the unavoidable dependence of animal use in indigenous cultures as these is, "Cases such as this, where the very survival of a culture is at stake, require that an exception be made. This may be justified by the principle that while humans may have no greater right to live than members of any other species, they also have no lesser right to live."(p.160)
Throughout Deep Vegetarianism, Fox strongly reiterates the positive effects that a universal change to vegetarianism would have on the entire world. His voice is that of a strong, passionate, and convincing man who will continue to urge people to change their dependence on animals and encourage them towards a vegetarianism lifestyle. He not only concludes that it [universal vegetarianism] would bring humankind closer to the environment, but that it also would significantly cut down on the rapid destruction of the natural world, which increases as the dependence of meat in human society increases. The end of a meat-centered society would not be the end of flourishing human existence as many anti-vegetarians conclude. "...vegetarianism, rather than being confining, is liberating as it frees us from the exploitation of animals, the domination of nature, and the oppression of one another, and frees us to discover ourselves in more positive, life-affirming ways." (p.183) Sometimes his writing style has a 'preachy' feel because of his adamant opinion that the only right diet for a flourishing world future is one based on vegetarianism ideals, and this may cause some readers to feel very defensive.
For anyone looking to help solidify unclear positions of their vegetarianism, or to explore new ideas to strengthen their stance of a non-meat based diet, I adamantly recommend this book. For people who have not looked into the positive effects of a vegetarian lifestyle, both individually and universal, I recommend this book to be read with an open mind and eager knowledge, keeping in mind that after its completion you may very well be on your way to vegetarianism. "In order to make the transition to sustainable societies and sensible lifestyles, we need not embrace extreme altruism and self-denial, just good sense and a sense of proportion." (p.177)

brilliant
Fox's book is a brilliant synthesis of the compelling philosophical, environmental, health, moral, political, cultural, and spiritual reasons for vegetarianism. The real strength of this broad-based "reader" is its ability to bring these diverse arguments together as a coherent whole, while presenting counter-arguments with a fair and balanced hand. "Deep Vegetarianism" is written in an accessible, non-dogmatic style that is sure to be enjoyed by anyone with a passing interest in the subject. Highly recommended!

Food for thought
Michael Allen Fox has written a calm, reasoned assessment of the arguments for and against vegetarianism. A great merit of the book is that it explores philosophical arguments in a way that makes them accessible to the general public. Fox doesn't preach to his readers, nor does he expect us all to become saints overnight. Rather, he asks us to consider the far-reaching effects of our dietary choices, and to choose wisely. This is a first-rate book!

Dissapointingly shrill.
I was somewhat disappointed in this book. While it supports those who are considering becoming vegetarians for humane reasons with its many descriptions of the cruelty inflctied upon animals by the meat industry, I find that "Modern Meat" by Orville Schell did that just as well without delving into the esoteric garbage that Fox gets into in "Deep Vegtarianism".I was turned off by the author's rather weak arguments against eating the meat of free range animals. His circular reasoning that no one should eat the meat from free range animals because there is such a small supply of it and therefore, since there isn't enough for everyone, no one should eat it, hurts my brain.Fox insists that raising animals for meat is an ecological disaster. What he fails to mention is that there are many areas of the world where it is impractical to raise crops, but rather easy to raise grazing animals. Fox also gives short shrift to the health reasons that many people have for eating meat, such as food allergies, iron deficienies, and absorption problems.

Very Good Book
If you are interested in ethical reasons for becoming or remaining a vegetarian, this is a very good book. Fox draws from various areas to support a vegetarian diet from ethical considerations. His most convincing arguments position vegetarianism as a environmental ethics subissue. He also speaks of the pain and suffering that the big meat industry casts on animals. He is conscious of the need to make a decision to become vegetarian to be a gradual one and incorporates that understanding in the book. Fox has written a convincing and interesting book. And it is certainly a shift from his previous book when he advocated for the use of nonhuman animals in scientific experimentation. No more of that! Great read! ... Read more

Book Description

A damning indictment of animal rights fanaticism. The book unravels the web of extremism that starts with the organization know as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and extends to the far outer violent edges of this fringe movement. ... Read more

Reviews (8)

The Little Yellow Chicken
Read the book. It IS worth it.

Help a PETA person with the big words. We know it won't help, but we will have done our good and gentle deed for the day. Maybe they won't go out and kill, rape, pillage and burn in their self-loathing.

Addendum
I note, also with interest, that none of the detracting "reviewers" had the gumption to put a name/address to their missives.

Worth thinking about, given the revelations in Workman's book.

Read and ponder, for the open minded, it will be worth the effort.

Houston, "open minds?"
It is interesting to note that the star rating on this book has been heavily stacked by supporters of PETA. It is even more important to note that these selfsame "reviewers" (A questionable term, as the writers seem more engaged in preaching rather than reviewing) all urge open-mindedness while reading THEIR recommendations, the very attribute they failed to exercise in reading 'PETA Files.'

Workman presents an array of well researched data, along with statements made by the principals of PETA and other such groups. These statements are often in contradiction of others made by the same people/organizations, and certainly in contradiction of exhibited behavior by said groups.

The single most important (to my mind) point made in the books is the distinction between an "Animal Rights" group and an "Animal Welfare" organization. It is clear that, at the very bottom line, the "Animal Rights" crowd has zero concern for the actual well being of animals.

Dave isn't writing a Clancy thriller, he's making a report based on FACT. The complaints about "writing style," "piece of garbage," "lies,bigotry and slander [sic]" and the blatant hatred shown in the reviews is more telling of the attitudes of PETA (and associates) than anything that might be printed in Workman's book. Even more telling for those who complained about the quality of writing are the errors in spelling, grammar and general ignorance of the language displayed by such "reviewers."

I recommend the book to anyone who prefers fact over hyperbole.

Why pay for it?
Why pay for it? The internet has all the anti-peta messages you could possibly desire. Whatever you do, it's important to understand the momentum behind the movement. Read Animal Liberation by Peter Singer whether you hate peta or not. As Sun Tsu said, "Know yourself, know your enemy; your victory will be certain." But if you're going to read it (Animal Liberation), do so with an open mind. Singer definately drops some knowledge in there.

Terrible writing
Hard to get thru because of bad writting style. Also, to much name calling and not enough hard facts. I was looking for an unbiased work and instead recieved the opposite. ... Read more

Reviews (4)

Groundbreaking Study of Systemic Oppression
While I was familiar with historical episodes of oppression and violence, I never really connected the dots to see how many of these events were related and largely motivated by greed and avarice. I was opposed to cruel treatment of animals, but I did not realize the connections between their treatment and human oppression until reading this book. This book opened my eyes to the structural causes of oppression (and motivated me to become a vegetarian). I highly recommend it.

Putting oppression in historical context
In this ambitious undertaking, Nibert attempts to demonstrate the entwined fates of humans and animals throughout the history of the western world. In a style that will be well received by fans of Howard Zinn, Nibert uses this historical review to put contemporary oppression in a broader context. Framing this overview in sociological theory, Nibert suggests that the capitalist system and neoliberalist, global development policies and practices bear considerable responsibility for much of the suffering of humans and animals throughout the world today. A very good read for students and progressive activists for all causes.

Just doesn't flow
Nibert makes leaps and bounds between his different trains of thought with no real logic coherently holding them together. He also grossly distorts reality and presents his own opinions as "facts."

A must for anyone concerned with equality...
David Nibert does a wonderful job of using social theory to explain animal oppression and show the ties of animal oppression to the institution of capitalism. He enhances his topic by showing how the oppression of animals is deeply entangled with the oppression of humans based on ethnicity, gender, and social class. Using a slightly modified version of Donald Noel's theory of ethnic stratification, Nibert clearly maps out his ideas concerning the oppression of non-human animals. He covers all aspects of oppression, ranging from the truths behind flesh consumption to the use of animals in vivosects. His topics then expand to show how the autrocities committed against animals then lead to, and help support, the oppression of humans.
This book is a must for anyone concerned with animal rights AND human rights. Equality will not come from seperate movements fighting for one cause. Coming together, and realizing that the cause being fought for is universal and spans the bridge between humans and animals, is the only way to make progess. David Nibert makes this issue painfully clear. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

A must for anyone interested in Animals & Ethics
When I taught a course on Animals and Ethics, I chose this volume over all others as my primary text. While Peter Singer's ANIMAL LIBERATION first awoke my consciousness to the tragedy of the manner in which humans have regarded and treated animals, I found the philosophical underpinnings of his work (a form of utilitarianism) troublesome (for reasons I won't go into here). On the other hand, I found Tom Regan's THE CASE FOR ANIMAL RIGHTS, to be far too Kantian. Midgley discusses a wide-ranging group of philosophers, but doesn't overly attach herself to any particular moral philosophy. As a result, she is less doctrinaire than any of the other major writers on the topic. The book reeks of common sense, in the way that the English so often seem to have mastered. Just a wonderful, unjustly neglected book. ... Read more

Book Description

In Without a Tear Mark H. Bernstein begins with one of our most common and cherished moral beliefs: that it is wrong to intentionally and gratuitously inflict harm on the innocent. Over the course of the book, he shows how this apparently innocuous commitment requires that we drastically revise many of our most common practices involving nonhuman animals.

Most people who write about our ethical obligations concerning animals base their arguments on emotional appeals or contentious philosophical assumptions; Bernstein, however, argues from reasons but carries little theoretical baggage. He considers the issues in a religious context, where he finds that Judaism in particular has the resources to ground moral obligations to animals. Without a Tear also makes novel use of feminist ethics to add to the case for drawing animals more closely into our ethical world.

Bernstein details the realities of factory farms, animal-based research, and hunting fields, and contrasting these chilling facts with our moral imperatives clearly shows the need for fundamental changes to some of our most basic animal institutions. The tightly argued, provocative claims in Without a Tear will be an eye-opening experience for animal lovers, scholars, and people of good faith everywhere. ... Read more

Book Description

How has the state of animals improved in the last half century? How has it worsened? Where are gains made on behalf of animals under threat? In one landmark volume, distinguished scholars and experts examine these questions–and offer often-provocative answers–for farm animals, companion animals, laboratory animals, zoo animals, and wildlife worldwide. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

Outstanding presentation of material in brief
I was surprised at how well organized and comprehensive this book really is. It is large format (not a small paperback) and includes charts, graphs, photos, and well-explained statistics. This would be perfect for writing reports for high school or college classes on the subject of animal rights. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

Veterinary Ethics
The field of veterinary medicine is expanding rapidly to include medical treatments that would have been considered impossible 20 years ago. Today, animals suffering from such things as cancer, joint diseases and severe trauma have a good chance of not only survival but of living a healthy life due to the advancements in veterinary medicine. The many changes in veterinary medicine, coupled with the evolution of new views on animal rights in our society over the last two decades, have created many ethical veterinary dilemmas and questions that have never been explored in a written context. Dr. Rollin has devoted his life to studying these issues and has been intimately involved in various laws and legislation involving animal rights and the ethics involved. This book examines a topic that has been largely debated but, for the most part, not covered in a text format. Dr. Rollin is well respected and speaks to many forums about these topics year round. He does a great job of presenting the cases in this book in an unibiased manner and encourages you to think about each of the important issues brought up by these cases. Each of these cases, by the way, are based on true cases and is beneficial to the understanding of what today's veterinarian faces. The book is not set up in a manner for leisure reading but is still very interesting and easy to follow. This is an excellent book on a fairly new topic of study and I would recommend it to any reader with any link to the veterinary profession or with any interest in animals. ... Read more

Book Description

Each autumn, millions of men and increasing numbers of women don camouflage or blaze orange outfits and go afield in pursuit of game. For much of American history, there was no need to explain why they did this. Hunting was simply another aspect of the annual cycle of planting, breeding, and harvesting. But modern hunting began separating from its agrarian roots well over a century ago, and although it has retained its connection to the metaphor of the harvest, the self-perceptions and motives of hunters today are no longer transparent, especially to nonhunters. Indeed, hunting—and those who hunt—have become targets of a vocal and growing array of critics.

In "Mortal Stakes," Jan E. Dizard examines the place of hunting in contemporary America. Drawing on detailed interviews with hunters as well as opinion surveys and demographic statistics, he analyzes the meanings these men and women attach to hunting and situates this traditional activity in its current setting. He looks at who hunts, how they compare socially and politically with nonhunters, and how they see themselves and are seen by others.

With fewer and fewer Americans closely linked to the land, hunting seems less ordinary and less necessary. As the gulf between hunters and nonhunters widens, hunters have begun to think of themselves as a minority group which, like other minorities, suffers from prejudice and stereotyping. As a result, Dizard argues, hunting is fast becoming one more front in an expanding "culture war" over what it means to be an American. ... Read more

Reviews (2)

Thought-provoking and a very worthwhile read.
Dizard continues to educate and explore hunting in America. A wonderful writer in a family of gifted writers and educators, he offers us the gift of greater understanding and contemplation of these issues. Again, another terrific book from this author.

Best book on the subject
Great writing by a brave person willing to attempt to make sense of an aspect of our culture everyone thinks they understand. One will find it difficult to take pleasure or refuge in their prejudices after reading this book. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

Excellent book!
This is my must have book (bible) for my research on environmental enrichment. If you work with animals in a captive situation, you need to read this book. The book also deals with stereotypy. A lot of excellent information on enrichment and its implications for captive animals. If you are at all interested in environmental enrichment or currently implement an enrichment program for your animals, do yourself a favor and read this book.

A nice surprise
I bought "Ethics on the Ark" at the same time as this book, and was disappointed with that book. This book, however, was a very nice surprise. I felt it gave a unbiased view of captive animal enrichment, and the ethics behind keeping animals in captivity. I appreciated the completeness of this book, starting from a historical perspective, straight through to modern reasoning. I would say this is a must have for anyone working with animals in a captive environment.

excelente review of environmental enrichment
A book that had to be written. This book is a good and basic guide for people working or interested in environmental enrichment. Several aspects are covered by the book, from theoretical bases to the implications to use enrichment for the conservation and welfare of wild animals. However, although it gives a lots of examples on mammals and some on reptiles, it forgets birds. ... Read more

Book Description

Book Description

Like a latter-day Goya, Sue Coe is driven to create moral works, from stark renditions of slaughterhouse brutality to accounts of abused domestic animals and laboratory testing. In Pit's Letter, a hapless canine describes her desolate life to her only surviving sister. She recounts her puppyhood and upbringing in her human family, her heartless banishment, and finally her suffering and death at the hands of the experimenting scientists at Eden Biotechnology. Ironically, her former master winds up in the same situation: an accidental scratching infects him with a pathogen - and man and beast share the same fate. ... Read more

Reviews (5)

Finding Empathy...
This book was not just a story about the pit bulls "misconception" but of human "misconception". I have always believed that man was put on earth to take care of animals, not act like one. This book explores just how far humans will go to attain dominance and superiority over anyone or anything they deem "weaker"...I loved the book and plan to give it as gifts to all I feel "know what empathy might be".

USELESS DRIBBLE
Nothing but stereotypical bull plop. If you really want to know anything about the breed read any of Richard Stratton's books, they are pretty good. This book and the "author's" views are scandalous (scandal sell my friend) at best and a great disservice to these noble creatures and the responsible owner of this breed who has to put up with the prejudices or our society. Beleive it or not, not all pitbull owners are dirt bags or lowlifes.

Hyperbolic animal rights fantasies gone wild
Sue Coe has no equal but is beloved by animal rights radicals for her jaundiced, human-hating view of life on earth. To her all humans are evil and savage, even the good people are tainted. All animals are innocent victims tortured by humanity. What's scary is not what you see in Sue Coe's overheated imagery, but the fact that many young people are captivated by her gothic vision and take it for gospel truth. The stereotypical caricatures of dog fighters are a joke. We all know that every animal abuser goes on to hurt people, too. Right. Whatever. Sue Coe really despises people, and that's sad. She invokes just about every animal rights cause in this small book, including a feverish slam at deer hunting, which seemed totally gratuitous and unwarranted in a book supposedly focussing on pit bulls. I got this book from Amazon because I own a pit bull. I knew better than to expect a fair and balanced picture from Sue Coe, though.

Touching, brilliant and chilling.
Touching, brilliant and chilling, this book affected me down to the depths of my soul. A must read for all animal lovers. Thought provoking and disturbing, for the more sensitive reader, but contacts the heart, nevertheless. Arlene Millman, author of BOOMERANG - A MIRACLE TRILOGY (The tale of a remarkable Boston Terrier).

An extraordinary literary and aesthetic achievement
Sue Coe has no competition. One of the most brilliant artists of our time has given us a book that will make you weep--and think. This is the story of one dog's life, told through a series of letters and illustrations. Pages of detailed, chilling drawings take us through various subcultures that Pit Bulls have come to know best. The reader travels in Pit's mind through brutal streets where rape and dog fighting go hand in hand. Pit ends up in a Dickensian shelter, which eventually leads to a laboratory where the unimaginable is routine. Don't be scared--following Pit's journey is worth the agony. This little book is like a stick of dynamite. You will never look at another Pit Bull again without a tug of compassion. I just kept reading it over and over. ... Read more

Book Description

Historian James Turner focuses on the great rise of Victorian concern for the humane treatment of animals, one of the most noteworthy flowering of such sentiment in modern times and one that engaged the support of the rich and the powerful, of church dignitaries, peers and ministers, and the queen herself.In delving into the history of animal rights, he also offers a fresh perspective on such varied aspects of Victorian culture as attitudes toward sex, pain, child labor, women, poverty, and science.

Turner draws on extensive researh in the archives of a animal protection societies, literature of the period, and controversial writings on the treatment of animals. He argues that the dual shocks of industrialization and urbanization helped produce a deeper emotional identification with the natural world.Scientists of the day, proclaiming that human beings were close kin to beasts, not only encouraged but demanded considerate treatment for animals, a sentiment that reached its liveliest expression in the antivivisection controversy.By the turn of the century, the author demonstrates, new conceptions of human nature adn heightened sensitivity even to the plight of lower life-forms were contributing to a new understanding of man's place in nature. ... Read more

Book Description

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. ... Read more

Reviews (4)

Cohen needs to consult his logic text
Cohen's incompetent, sophomoric handling of even the most elementary of potential reasons for rejecting "animal rights" talk (AR) makes a mockery of this debate (a surprising deficit, given his training and reputation as a logician). Regan, in contrast, is scholarly and thoughtful, though one suspects that his case for AR (and consequent absolutism)continues to faulter against his foundational assumption of the "equal inherent value of all subjects of a life" and rejection of all extrinsic ethical considerations.

Ethics Vs. Science...
In this book Tom Regan does a wonderful job explaining his view of animal rights in a clear and logical way. He examines in detail a variety of issues, from food and clothes to entertainment and science. Carl Cohen, on the other hand, does not focus on the whole issue. His view is much smaller. He goes in detail of why he believes animals are needed in science, but ignores the other issues. He at some points even admits that there is no excuse or justification for the treament of animals in some situations, such as factory farms. If this book were more of a debate, it would be much more interesting. But I feel that Carl Cohen falls short. It is a shame, this book had real potential. At least Tom Regan's part makes it worth reading.

And the Winner Is...
I began reading The Animal Rights Debate with the expectation that debate between two philosophy professors might truly illuminate the issues at hand in the continuing, in fact, increasing, discussion regarding the relationship between humans and other animals.

Tom Regan is well known for his sharp and careful analysis, and I expected anyone paired with him in a book of this nature to be similarly prepared for the discussion. Mr. Cohen did write as if he knew what he was writing about, but unfortunately for the reader, he did not.

From the first pages of Mr. Cohen's article, errors of fact are rife. He says, "The Department of Agriculture recently estimated the number of animals used in medical and pharmaceutical research to be about 1.6 million, of which the vast majority, approximately 90%, were rats, mice, and other rodents." (p 14)

In fact, mice, rats, and birds are specifically excluded from the statistics Mr. Cohen cites; the Department of Agriculture (USDA) figures do not include mice, rats, or birds because the Animal Welfare Act excludes these animals from coverage under the act. This is very well known by all observers. Industry estimates suggest that at least 30 million mice and rats are used annually.

He also claims that "every" lab using animals is subject to "frequent" inspection by the Department of Agriculture to insure the humane use of the animals in those labs. The USDA, in fact, estimates that at least 2000 labs in the US are not inspected because they use only mice, rats, or birds, and these animals are not counted as animals under U.S. law. Humane use is not at issue even during the inspections of the labs that do fall within the purview of the agency.

I was shocked by Mr. Cohen's lack of command of the basic facts regarding animals used in U.S. laboratories, and more so by his claim that he was presenting the facts.

As far as Mr. Cohen's philosophical arguments are concerned, aside from his factual errors, I found his claims to be a mix of circular reasoning: only humans have rights, animals aren't human, so animals can't have rights; bait and switch: he makes the correct claim that most animals used in labs are rodents, and then calls attention to polio, the investigation of which almost eliminated rhesus monkeys from India; demonizing: he goes out of his way to paint rats as the ugliest and meanest creatures imaginable, and other similarly suspect techniques used commonly to confuse an audience.

But, this book thrilled me nevertheless. The arguments put forth by Mr. Regan are straightforward, fact driven, and polite. His logic is impeccable and his conclusions inescapable.

It is at once gladdening to see the best that each side in the debate can muster clearly displays the fact that animals do have inherent rights. Indeed, based on the arguments presented in this book, the debate is over. It remains painful to realize that the essentially failed attempt by Mr. Cohen is nevertheless the weak excuse for the continuing daily massive exploitation of other animals by us. If you have an interest in seeing an opponent of animal rights get thoroughly trounced, then I think you will like this book. If you are looking for reasoned debate, unfortunately, the defenders of the status quo have yet to muster a meaningful and cogent argument.

a good text for an Ethics and Animals course
Regan's contribution is impressive. Regan's section is where to begin. He argues that whether a being has rights (and which rights it has) depends on its psychological capacities, not its biological species per se. Since babies and mentally challenged humans (who aren't rational or autonomous) have the right not to be eaten, worn, experimented on, chased down and shot and their heads hung on the wall, etc., so do non-human animals, since their psychologies are of comparable, if not often greater, levels. QED.

Objections to Regan concern his general theory of rights, NOT whether animals have them, if anyone does (many plausible moralities deny "rights" in the sense Regan defends).

According to Cohen, animals do not have rights because they animals cannot engage in moral deliberation, act on principles, and be moral agents.

Many humans cannot cannot engage in moral deliberation, act on principles, and be moral agents and hvae the capacities that Cohen seems to think are necessary for having rights. But, most of us think it would be wrong to experiment on them and kill them, even if doing so would greatly advance our interests. Cohen agrees. But since some humans lack these capacities yet have rights, this shows that these capacities are not necessary for rights. Cohen's denying rights to animals is arbitrary, a case of not treating beings with equal psychological capacities as equals: it is discrimination on the basis of species alone.

Cohen replies that objections like this "miss the point badly" because human infants, the senile, and the severely mentally disabled "have rights because they are human." He says that, "The critical distinction is one of kind." Earlier Cohen said that the "kind" needed for rights possession was a moral and psychological kind; now he says that the relevant kind is the biological kind Homo sapiens. No justification is given for this switch and why humans who (even permanently) lack moral capacities have rights yet animals do not.

Cohen's reply to this objection--the so called "argument from marginal cases"--is unsuccessful and his main argument that animals do not have rights fails. Appeals to thinkers ranging from Aquinas and Augustine to Marx and Lenin, as well as appeals to "immediate" and "certain" intuitions, do little to defend his view either. His repeated ad hominem attacks on those who disagree with him do not help either.

Cohen also argues that animals don't have rights because it's in our interest to use them. It's scientificaly dubious that using animals for food and research is in our best interest (both vegetarian diets and human-based research are superior for meeting our needs), but questions about morality shouldn't be decided by appeal to self-interest anyway. Cohen's case that animals do not have rights is a disappointment. ... Read more

Reviews (2)

How should we think of animals?
In 'Animals on the Agenda', Andrew Linzey and Dorothy Yamamoto have put together a good collection of essays and articles on the study of animals and theology. American and European contributors have come together to discuss questions that often perplex people from childhood onward -- do animals have souls? What is the proper attitude toward animals? Are they merely resources, or do they have rights?

Much of theology divides the world into two classes -- creation and humanity; animals almost always get lumped in with the rest of creation, with little or no recognition of the sentient character of their being. Mainstream Christianity and Judaism still propagate ideas that are harmful to animals -- although, in the kosher laws of Judaism, respect of the living character of animals has always had a certain prominence, and more recently Christianity has dealt with the idea of animals as a valuable part of creation, worthy of respect and not merely exploitation by humanity.

This book is primarily one of Christian theological perspectives -- I mention Judaism because many of the issues overlap, and many of the essays in this text will be informative for people of both traditions.

This is not to say that the Christian or Jewish perspective must embrace vegetarianism, or suddenly convert to a radical elevation of the animal kingdom above that of humanity. While many Eastern religions have historically and theologically embraced what Westerners often consider an extreme point of view on animals, there is insight to be gained from them, as well. For 2000 years in the Christian tradition, and longer in the Jewish tradition, animals have had not only a low status, but often no status.

'Animals are subordinate to humankind, who have been given 'dominion' (commonly understood as despotism) over them. How far these ideas are distinctly or authentically Christian is beside the point; the fact is that the Christian tradition has propagated them--and still defends them.'

Does an ethical sensitivity to animals represent a rejection of traditional theology? Many saints have been represented as having close, harmonious relations with animals (and not just St. Francis). It is true that most moral and systematic theologies have ignored animals, or relegated them to nothing more than a tool. Interestingly, Linzey states that the current state of theology is more open to the idea of aliens than to animals. In the speculation about possible life beyond the earth, some theologians already allow access to the divine.

'Such theological open-mindedness, not to mention open-heartedness, to other non-human alien species is hardly ever directed to other non-human but non-alien animal species.'

This collection is very much a beginning. By looking at scriptural perspectives on animals in the Hebrew scriptures and the New Testament, church traditional perspectives (both catholic and protestant), examining disputed questions such as 'do animals have souls?' and 'what is the purpose of animal suffering?', and finally looking at ethical obligations to animals, this collection is a pioneering work that opens the door to further, more fruitful discussions in modern theology of the place of animals.

The title of the final essay, 'Is the Consistent Ethic of Life Consistent without a Concern for Animals?' perhaps best sums up the approach -- life in its diversity must include animals. This is not to elevate them above the place of humanity, or even to put them on an equal footing in all things, but to give them their rightful place, and proper compassion and respect.

A good summary of much-needed ideas about animals.
I've grown very accustomed to defending the Biblically-based ideas of Andrew Linzey to those "Christians" who know little about God's Word and even less of His love and mercy, and this compilation is a wonderful addition to his impressive list of writings. This was the book that first introduced me to him, and others, in this fascinating field of Biblical thought. Highly recommended! ... Read more