Literature Review

The ethical treatment of animals has been a topic of great interest throughout human history, with religious teachings often guiding societal attitudes towards animals. This study offers a comparative analysis of animal rights within the frameworks of Islam and Judaism. Both religions, with their deeply rooted traditions and extensive canonical texts, provide insights into humans' moral and practical responsibilities towards animals. In Islam, the Quran and Hadiths frequently emphasize the importance of kindness to animals. These texts highlight the notion that animals are communities unto themselves and that they are a significant part of God's creation. This leads to various teachings and prophetic traditions that guide Muslims in ensuring the welfare of animals, from their treatment in daily life to their humane handling in the context of food preparation. In Judaism, the Torah, Talmud, and other rabbinical writings echo many of these sentiments. The Jewish principle of (the prohibition against causing unnecessary suffering to animals) underscores the ethical responsibilities that Jews have towards animals. This study serves as a foundation for further exploration of the topic. It encourages the bridging of gaps between different religious communities, promoting shared values and the collaborative enhancement of animal welfare standards globally.

Aubropocentrism has been identified as a root cause of nonbuman animal and intra-oppressions and the enuroealcusiVegamsm has been celchrated as philosopby and practice capable of undermining anthropocentrism, yet the anti-anthropo-centric capacity of vegan advocacy is understudied. The current research provides a criticalamplesis of the outive adiscacy discourse of three promment vegan organisations-Vegan Society, PETA, and Viva! - elucidating areas of antbropocentric reinforcement and subversion in correspondence to tbe conceptual characteristio of anthropocentrism buman-centred narcissism and exceptionalism, the perceived human/animal dichotomy, buman-centred narcissism and exceptionalism, the perceived human/animal dichotomy, and a corresponding moral hierarchy that exalts particalar understandings of the 'humanto the detriment of all considered other-than (Calarco 2014). Given the interconnectednessnonbuman and buman oppressions and importance of decentring the anthropocentric conception of the "buman' the intersectional strengths and sbortcomings of the organisa-tons' vegan advocucy is additionally considered, with many areas of needed improvement being highlighted. The article contributes to research on vegan/nonhuman animal rights

There is currently a dispute in this country between animal rights activists and agriculturists concerning state-enacted legislation, commonly called an ag-gag law, which holds individuals either criminally or civilly liable for conducting undercover investigations at agricultural operations in order to expose animal abuse. While these ag-gag laws in many ways help protect animal welfare, they have continuously struggled to maintain their constitutionality under First Amendment legal challenges. Therefore, this Note argues that the better route to protect animal welfare and promote transparency in agriculture would be to enact arm protections statutes.

Human-wildlife coexistence is a very complex issue that involves conflicts that need to be analysed and managed to minimise the negative impact on biodiversity and humankind. Human-wildlife conflicts entail ethical issues related to stakeholders’ values, and the ethical aspects are particularly important when conflicts concern the reintroduction and management of endangered large carnivores in human landscapes. Trentino’s current situation concerning brown bears is an exemplary scenario. This study thus investigated ethically relevant aspects of the case JJ4 using media content analysis. Indeed, media information has a huge impact on the general public’s opinion. We collected reports using Google News and used the statements they reported to fill an ethical matrix. The ethical matrix is a tool which can consider the point of view of relevant stakeholders following three general ethical principles: well-being, autonomy and fairness. In this study we filled the ethical matrix only through a bottom-up methodology in which the value demands report the interests, values, and needs directly expressed in mass media by representatives of different stakeholders. The preliminary results show that the viewpoints of some stakeholders are more frequently reported compared to others, especially politicians and animal rights activists. There is a lack of information about residents, hunters and farmers, even if they are directly involved in the coexistence with bears. This information gap risks to convey people’s perspectives. To support a more equal decision-making process in brown bear conservation a top-down approach is necessary to complete the ethical matrix in order to map all the interests and values involved.

Non-human animals in the field of Dark Tourism (DT) is an area of recent discussion. While DT initially described tourist sites of human suffering and death, this field undoubtedly encompasses nonhuman malaise. Some activities are unmistakably DT experiences, like bullfighting and hunting, whereas zoos and aquaria are considered more ambiguous. Using Fennel's post-humanist prototype, animals in zoos and aquaria are highlighted as examples of dark tourism objects who endure pain, suffering and thwarted flourishing. It is argued that animal-based DT activities arise from anthropocentric domination narratives of human exceptionalism and entitlement. In the captive context, nature and nonhumans are conceptualized as “other”, extending the dominant, progress-driven misapprehensions of human-nature separation, allowing people to deny the true and far-reaching effects of human impacts on nonhumans and the earth. Dark tourists seek the artificial manifestations of the captive utopia of zoos and aquaria and the collusion provided, permitting the dismissal of animal rights, biodiversity loss and climate change. An alternative perspective of deep justice is offered, where the wellbeing, interests and rights of animals are inherently valued. Embracing this perspective would allow the rejection of captive-animal dark tourism sites such as zoos and aquaria and for the flourishing of all beings to be to be upheld.

Over 69% of the world's wildlife has been lost between 1970 and 2018. Catastrophic events like the Australian bushfires, the Amazon rainforest fires, and the ongoing floods in the United States have led to the deaths of several billion animals. Ongoing apocalyptic floods have put one-third of Pakistan underwater and led to the deaths of over a million livestock ani-mals. Climate change, human rights, and animal rights have become so intertwined that all life--including human, nonhuman, and plant life-is onthe brink of extinction.

Animal maltreatment became a subject of psychiatric research in the United States in the 1960s. At that time, a psychiatrist named John Macdonald identified a triad of childhood behaviors—animal cruelty, enuresis, and fire-setting—that he proposed were associated with interpersonal violence among sadistic psychiatric inpatients. Though it received much research follow-up, Macdonald's triad did not survive the test of time as a legitimate marker of violence risk. Childhood animal cruelty, however, has continued to receive research interest over the intervening decades, specifically its relationship to adult interpersonal violence. The Link, as it is commonly called, suggests that animal maltreatment might be predictive of various types of interpersonal offending. Much of the research supporting the Link is of poor methodological quality and limited generalizability to the population at large. Despite this, modern efforts to reform animal maltreatment law rely on the Link to motivate legislators. This article reviews the research that has formed the base for the hypothesized Link, focusing on intentional acts of animal cruelty and interpersonal violence; considers the historical bases for the regulation of animal treatment and the use of the Link to push for legislative change; and examines the possible unintended consequences of doing so.

Martha Minow’s concept of dilemmas of difference, widely influential in feminist philosophy of law, exposes how hidden patriarchal norms are reified in legal institutions and harmfully categorize oppressed groups. Though Minow primarily focuses on how such dilemmas impact interpersonal relationships, I argue that her work can be applied to the relationship between nonhuman animals, human beings, and our legal institutions. Just as certain patriarchal norms establish categories that mask the true roots of difference and thus make it more difficult for non-dominant groups to obtain justice, so too do implicit anthropocentric norms mark out nonhuman animals as different from human beings and similarly disadvantage them in the eyes of the law. As such, I utilize the conceptual frameworks of ecofeminist philosophy to expose the presently concealed anthropocentrism that undermines just legal standing for nonhuman animals. In doing so, I make a strong claim for reforming our legal institutions in order to resolve the unique dilemma of difference which nonhuman animals face.

The commitment of One Health appears at first glance to be an inclusive, intersectional approach to achieving overall wellbeing for all living beings. And yet, as reflected in the call for submissions for this special edition on the dilemma of animal-source food within One Health, it rarely includes, much less centers, animal species (other than humans) in the discussion surrounding our use of their lives, milks, eggs, babies, or bodies. In this article, we are responding to the call of authors who suggest a Just One Health approach can rhetorically infuse more humility and interconnectedness in positioning humans in and among other animals who also want to live freely in safe, healthy habitats. A multi-species justice ethic (blending human and animal rights into the broader rights of ecosystems) should be incorporated as part of Just One Health’s decision-making criteria.

In this study, present situation, the changes and problems in the last 30 years in sheep and goat breeding in Muş province and future developments were discussed. In Muş, 52.5% of the population lives in rural areas and most of them earn their lives by animal production. The province has high potential for sheep and goat breeding, and it ranks 15th in Turkey in terms of sheep and goat asset. The ratio of meadows and pasture to the total area (49.7%) is considerable above the Turkey average (18.8%). In most of the enterprises, animal breeding has been carried out with native sheep and goat breeds by pasture feeding. It was calculated that the meadow-pasture areas could meet 40.1% of the maintenance requirements of the animal in the province. Muş province has an important forage production potential and ranks 4th in alfalfa production in Turkey. However, while the stock of sheep and goats in the province was 1,642,020 in 1990, it decreased by 23.9% in 2021 to 1,250,000. The decline in the asset of sheep was 27.2%. In Muş, as in all of Turkey, a significant part of the barns are inadequate in terms of animal welfare. The most important problem regarding the pasture areas is that the mistakes in grazing managements. In order to ensure sustainability in sheep and goat breeding, incentives should be provided to prevent migration from rural areas, decrease in population and workforce, and efforts should be made to reduce input costs and increase the added-value of the products obtained. On the other hand, it was thought that the transition to organic animal breeding and the organization in this regard would create an opportunity to survive of small family-owned businesses.

Trophy hunting is one of the most contentious issues in recent biodiversity conservation discourse, eliciting opposition and support for the practice. Ethical concerns are often at the heart of the debate. To investigate moral views about trophy hunting, we conducted an online survey of randomly selected scholars worldwide who had published on biodiversity conservation (n = 2315). Scholars expressed divergent views on the moral acceptability of trophy hunting as a conservation practice. Moral convictions were significantly related to the perspectives of scholars. The most important factor in predicting the moral views of the respondents was the consequences of trophy hunting for local human communities. The results also indicated that utilitarian (versus deontological) decision-making in conservation, ecological consequences of trophy hunting and animal welfare issues contribute to the divergent views. The findings emphasize the need for interdisciplinary work on ethical issues concerning animal rights and welfare in conservation, as well as providing robust and comprehensive evidence on the consequences of trophy hunting for local communities. We caution that polarization among conservation scholars may negatively affect conservation efforts. Based on the literature and our findings, we provide some recommendations to narrow the gap and consider different management options.

Currently, the rights of animals and their protection arise from an ethical and legal approach. In recent years, civil society and animal protection groups have positioned themselves in favor of granting rights to animals, advocating for legislation to introduce legal protection for these beings and punishment for their abusers into the laws; although there are also those who maintain that granting rights to animals is an excess. In this article, a review of the state of the issue of the demand for animal rights is made, starting from a brief synthesis of the long-sought achievement by humanity of its own rights. It also reviews the position of renowned philosophers on animals. It also exposes the legal approach to animal protection.