Literature Review

This paper identifies an overlooked but widespread philosophical view in the animal rights movement, Animal Rights Vanguardism. This is the view that (1) the arc of history, by way of ever-increasing moral awareness, bends towards animal liberation, (2) animal rights activists are aware of the moral truth when it comes to human-animal relations thanks to a moral-epistemic privilege, and (3) the primary moral imperative for animal rights activists is to increase the moral awareness of the masses. The paper then makes four points about Animal Rights Vanguardism: First, it can be found across a wide range of animal rights literature. Second, it is the target of many familiar objections against vegans and animal rights activists. Third, it presents an obstacle to the success of the animal rights movement. Fourth, consciously rejecting it leads to a more compelling philosophy of animal rights activism, termed Critical Animal Rights Collectivism, which is based on the principles that social change is contingent, that everyone has broadly equal access to moral truth, and that activists should focus on collective organization more than on individual persuasion.

To answer the raised question, I will firstly look at the philosophy of sport literature. The only author within the philosophy of sport literature that was considering including animals as a topic or even a field in the ethics of sport was W. J. Morgan (Morgan&Meier, 1995; Morgan, Meier& Schneider, 2001). He considered animals as a special part of the ethics in sport – together with competition, enhancements, gender, and social issues (Škerbić, 2021) The only topic that was pursued in a significant amount was animal hunting (Wade, 1990; Kheel, 1996; Curnutt, 1996; Dickson, 2010; Morris, 2014, 2021;), while in a much lesser amount the ethics of animals in sport (Campbell, 2013; Morris, 2014, 2018; Neuhaus&Parent, 2019) and specifically horses (McLean&McGreevy, 2010; Torres&Lopez Frias, 2019; Evans&McNamee, 2021). Secondly, I will claim that animal issues in sport deserve significant attention, but it should be considered within the area of Bioethics of Sport. Most of all, connections should be made with the bioethics literature on animals and its authorities such as Peter Singer and Tom Regan. Finally, I will propose three possible ways to considerate animals in the philosophy of sport, starting with 1) foundational issues (such as: which kind of usage of animals/non-humans should be considered as a sport, what are 'animals or interspecies sports', how to build 'animal ethics of sport', animal rights and liberationism in sport, anthropocentrism and biocentrism in sports) and then going to more 2) specific and/or recent issues and cases (such as cloning horses or hunting), to end up in 3) making connections to the general literature and concepts of/in sports-philosophy.

The grievances of animal agricültüre are becoming more and more visible. The sitüation in this indüstry is of ünbelievable gravity and demands the lives of billions of animals each day who süffer a miserable and short life before being killed. This is why activism for animals focüses more and more on the agricültüral contexts of animal süffering (Vüole 16–17). There is an abündance of activism strategies which can be üsed to make people go vegan or jüst make someone think twice aboüt the meat on their diet. The animal rights movement is characterized by a prevalent ethical motivation (Münro 169). Nonetheless, this movement is broad and entails several different approaches that do not all include the demand for animal rights (see chapter 2.3). Therefore, the movement will be referred to as animal movement to include rights positions as well as welfare positions. Whether in the streets, in personal discüssions or in academia – activism for animals is heterogeneoüs and the debate aboüt the right approach to end animal süffering is heated. This debate can be redüced to two positions: idealistic and pragmatic (Leenaert; Francione & Garner). Idealistic voices plead for individüal ethical behavior, süch as to spread ethical veganism. However, there are a growing nümber of academic and activist voices advocating for pragmatic means to achieve a vegan world (Freeman; Taft; Leenaert). This inclüdes advocating for meat redüction like Meatless Mondays or incremental welfare reforms. However, these means seem to contradict the principles and ideals of an idealistically led vegan activist. On the one hand, pragmatism coüld ündermine the anti-speciesist mission of the animal movement (Francione). On the other hand, pragmatists criticize idealism for being ineffective and hampering incremental improvements for animals by sticking to fixed principles (Leenaert). So how do activists balance these two approaches? This stüdy’s context is Lünebürg, Germany, and will examine how five activists from this city deal with the tension explained above.

Human rights and animal rights are inextricably linked. Violating the rights of animals has profound implications for the rights of humans, including fundamental rights to food and water and the right to a healthy environment. This chapter examines how the interests of humans and animals are aligned when it comes to threats faced by all life on the planet. Humanity and animals both suffer from the effects of deforestation, environmental destruction, the loss of biodiversity, the emergence of zoonotic diseases, world hunger and freshwater scarcity. Issues of national security and violence in society are also considered. This chapter explores humanity’s deep connection with animals and builds the case for more meaningful legal protection for animals based on our shared destinies.

The article covers legal history of animals rights and protection legislation in Croatia. Legislation existed since 19th Century and all was abolished by the end of World War I and creation of Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia never had any umbrella legislation covering animal rights and/or protection. The Republic of Croatia enacted its own legislation in 1990s.

Upon the enaction of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, American animal rights activists and advocates secured a huge victory for many introduced and indigenous animals that lived within the United States and earned them long-deserved dignities and protections.1 The Act, referred to as the ESA, expanded the cognizant trend of previous Congressional Acts made in the 1960s which had addressed a growing public concern regarding animal rights, particularly through establishing protections for endangered animals.2 Prior to the enactment of the ESA, Congress had passed the Endangered Species Preservation Act in 1966 which prohibited the ‘taking’ of federally recognized ‘endangered species.’3 Although these acts were substantial steps in the preservation movement— leading to the recognition and protection of threatened animals—and reflected a favorable public consensus towards extending humane protections to animals, they were not entirely comprehensive in their scope.4 These enactments were deficient in numerous regards with some of these deficiencies having been remedied by amendments to the ESA, but others still remain unaddressed.5

Animals ought to be granted the legal status of personhood, and if not, a viable alternative should be for humans to have the ability to file lawsuits on behalf of animals as their legal guardians. To support this thesis, in the upcoming sections, I begin by delving into the prevailing legal characterization of animals as mere property, a classification that has persisted for generations. This property status has long confined animals to a legal framework that has not adapted well to our evolving understanding of their sentience and complex lives. Within this context, I examine the urgent necessity for fundamental alterations in our legal treatment of animals, alterations that would confer upon them the status of “nonhuman legal personhood.”

The article discusses the evolution of animal rights in common law, legislation, and standing in the U.S. and around the world by examining nonhuman personhood and the liberty interests for highly sentient animals. Other topics include the modern jurisprudence on the use of habeas corpus to free said animals from tourism and exhibition, and the remedies to legally challenge the treatment of animals like the public nuisance claim.

This thesis conducts extensive research in animal rights comparing two contrasting settings of France and Nigeria, while emphasizing societal and ethical aspects. The essay presents an elaboration on the complexities of both countries approaching the treatment of animals with a particular notion of meat consumption. In the case of France, a Western country in Europe, a framework of industrialization and urbanization influenced the evolution of animal rights with various conventions and declarations, whereas the Nigerian population is still closely tied to its traditions, habits and spiritual beliefs. Both countries tend to have more similarities when the question is strictly about the consumption of meat, the debate differentiates in hunting practices and the existence of bushmeat in Nigeria, mainly at local markets. Bushmeat is hard to find in France, but it does exist in hidden places and shops in big cities of the country. Animal rights are important to both groups, French and Nigerians. Certain people believe that animals should be granted complete or differentiated rights in comparison to those who argue for animals being a source of food. There is a difference between pets, domesticated animals and wild animals in both places, as well as the dietary habits of people living in urban or rural areas. Such diversification is particularly crucial in Nigeria as these two groups of population are more divergent than in the setting of France.Esta dissertação realiza uma extensa pesquisa sobre os direitos dos animais, comparando dois contextos contrastantes: França e Nigéria, com ênfase nos aspectos sociais e éticos. O ensaio discorre sobre as complexidades do tratamento dado aos animais nos dois países, com foco especial no consumo de carne. Na França, um país da Europa Ocidental, uma estrutura de industrialização e urbanização influenciou a evolução dos direitos dos animais, com várias convenções e declarações relevantes. Por outro lado, a população nigeriana ainda mantém fortes vínculos com suas tradições, hábitos e crenças espirituais. Os dois países têm mais semelhanças quando se trata estritamente do consumo de carne, mas o debate difere quando se trata de práticas de caça e da existência de carne de caça, especialmente nos mercados locais da Nigéria. A carne de caça é difícil de encontrar na França, embora exista em lugares escondidos e lojas nas grandes cidades do país. Os direitos dos animais são importantes tanto para os grupos franceses quanto para os nigerianos. Algumas pessoas acreditam que os animais devem ter direitos plenos ou diferenciados, em comparação com aqueles que argumentam que os animais são uma fonte de alimento. Há uma diferença entre animais de estimação, animais domesticados e animais selvagens em ambos os lugares, bem como nos hábitos alimentares das pessoas que vivem em áreas urbanas ou rurais. Essa diversificação é particularmente crucial na Nigéria, pois esses dois grupos populacionais são muito diferentes.

In Just Fodder: The Ethics of Feeding Animals, I explore a range of overlooked practical questions in animal ethics and the philosophy of food, developing a new approach to animal ethics. According to the position I defend, animals have negative rights based on their possession of normatively significant interests, and we have positive obligations towards (and concerning) animals based on our normatively salient relationships with them. Gary O’Brien, Angie Pepper, Clare Palmer, and Leon Borgdorf offer a range of insightful challenges to my framework and its applications. Here, I respond to them around five themes: extensionism, agency, predation, interventionism, and environmentalism.

This paper contributes to the ongoing construction of non-human rights. I will argue that international law should move towards the recognition of animals and nature as subjects of rights (positive and negative). I will propose to combine two paths that show ways out of the anthropocentrism of international human rights law. The first is the capabilities approach of Martha Nussbaum that, while remaining indebted to Rawlsian liberalism, can provide a framework for the protection of non-humans in human rights practice through an understanding of rights as basic capabilities to flourish. The second path is the Earth Constitutionalism and jurisprudence in Latin America. Heavily influenced by indigenous legal philosophies, Latin American jurisprudence highlights ways in which we could move beyond the thin social goods of liberalism and promote human rights as a harmonizer force that protects nature as having worth by itself. These approaches combined pave the way for a postliberal approach to rights in which we move from the rationality-autonomy-freedom justification of rights towards a capabilities-harmony-sustainability approach to rights.

In the context of today's global structure, many changes and effects have gained a significant scope. In the light of this scope, many social awareness actions and models have emerged. Among these emerging models, the digitalisation of activism and the electronification of lynch culture have had the most significant impact. Especially in recent years, increasing awareness of animal rights all over the world has also been shaped within this scope. It would not be wrong to say that one of the biggest contributions to the increase in animal rights awareness all over the world is the Save Ralph short film. Cos in addition to the effect created by the Save Ralph short film, lynching culture is generally a negative situation thanks to both street and internet activism created by the activist society created by the digitalisation of activism, while lynching actions created through animal rights have gained a more positive and sanctioned perspective. For this reason, semiotic analysis was used to evaluate the Save Ralph example in the article produced from this thesis. In addition, 250 tweets posted on Twitter using the hashtags "#saveralph and/or #hayvanhakları" within a 22-day period between 29.03.2021 and 19.04.2021 were analysed by content analysis in 17 different categories.