ISSN: 2538-3272
Vol. 1 No. 1 (2017)
Ethics and Animals: Approaches and Theories
Bioethics and Health Law Journal (BHL),
Vol. 1 No. 1 (2017),
1 April 2017
,
Page 27-34
https://doi.org/10.22037/bhl.v1i1.16820
Abstract
Background and Aim: Moral status of animals has been attended by philosophers such as Pythagoras, Aquinas, Kant and etc. But in the contemporary period, considering this issue both in terms of volume and in quality is not comparable with the previous period. So that the pursuit of philosophical works written in this regard, can also be done with difficulty. This article seeks to introduce the main philosophical mainstream in this area and analyze the philosophical method and introduce the most effective and appropriate for Iran society.
Materials and Methods: In this review article, to introduce major approaches and theories in this article is used some of the most important available philosophical and religious texts. This critical review method in this article can be contained following the analytical method (analytic philosophy).
Ethical Considerations: In this review article, honesty and integrity have been considered and it has been tried to provide reasonable criteria as the moral duty of the researcher, as far as possible.
Findings: The behavior that humans have with animals is the subject of a branch of applied ethics, which is called animal ethics. There are various approaches in animal ethics: an analytical approach, continental approach, pragmatic attitude and theological approach. On the other hand, the ethics philosophers have used classical theories of ethics in this field and announced their position about animals. In a general classification, these views are in two categories: (1) direct theories (2) indirect theories. The indirect theories include theories of Kant and social contract and direct theories are divided into two categories: ideas and theories believing in the equality of human beings and animals and theories attached to the lack of equality.
Conclusion: Although the approaches and theories mentioned above, all can be effective as efficient theoretical tools in support of animal rights and decreasing their suffering, but since Iran is less philosophical and more religious community, the theological approach can be more efficient in the field of animal rights.
Citation: Jahed M. Ethics and Animals: Approaches and Theories. Bioeth Health Law J. 2017; 1(1):27-34.
- Bioethics
- Animal Ethics
- Approaches
- Theories
How to Cite
References
Dawkins M. Animal suffering: the science of animal welfare. Springer Science & Business Media; 2012.
Fitzpatrick A. Ethics and animal research. Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine. 2003 Feb 28;141(2):89-90.
Ahmed ibn Mohammad ibn Khalid, Al-Mahasen, researcher: Jalil Al-din Muhadith, Dar Al-ketab AL-Islamiya,Lunar year 1371.
Badavi,A, History of Theological Thoughts in Islam, Translator: Sabery,Vol.1, Islamic Research Foundation of Astane Quds Razavi,Solar year 1374, Vol.1, pp.403-409.
Pojman,Environmental Ethics, Translator:M. et al, Tossee Publication, vol.1,pp.49-50, 153.
Tabatabai,M.H, Translation of Tafsir Al-mizan, Translator:Moosavi Hamedani, Center for Islamic Publication, Vol.7, pp.103-104.
Al-Ameli, Animal Rights in Islam, Center for Islamic Researching, pp.15-59.
Abd Al-Jabbar Al-Asadabadi, Al-mughni fi Abwab Al-Tohid wa Al-adl, Researcher: Madkour & Afifi, Vol. Al-Lotf,p.459.
Koleini,M, Al-Kafi, Dar Al-Hadith, Lunar year 1429, Vol.13, pp.108, 268-269.
Majlesi,M.B, Bihar Al-Anwar,Dar Ehyae Al-Trath Al-Arabi, lunar year 1403, Vol.61, pp.201-204.
Aaltola E. Animal Ethics. In: Callicott J B & Frodeman R. Encyclopedia of Environmental Ethics and Philosophy, Gale; 2009, p.51.
Arras J D. Slippery Slope Argument. In: Becker LC, Beckerm CB. Encyclopedia of Ethics. Routledge; 2001,pp. 1595-1596.
Franklin, Julian H, Animal Rights and Moral Philosophy, Columbia University Press, 2005,p.19.
Baggini, Fosl. The Ethics toolkit. Blackwell; 2007.
Blackburn S. Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Oxford University Press; 1996.
Bunnin, N, Yu, J. The Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy, Blackwell; 2004,pp. 644-645.
Kemmerer L. In search of Consistency; Ethics and Animals. Brill; 2006,p.213.
Nelson J L. Marginal Cases. In: Bekoff M, Meaney C A. Encyclopedia of Animal rights and Animal Welfare, Greenwood press, 1998.
Pojman L P. Life and Death. Wadsworth; 2000,pp.153-154.
Regan T. Animal Rights, Human Wrongs. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers; 2003, p.1, 80-83.
Regan T. The Case For Animal Rights. University of California Press; 2004, p.243.
Scruton, R. Animal Rights and Wrongs, Continuum; 2000, pp.21-22.
Stewart N. Ethics: An Introduction to Moral Philosophy. Policy; 2009, pp. 121-128.
Wahdau P, Patton K. A Communion of Subjects: Animals in Religion, Science and Ethics. Columbia University Press; 2006,p.151.
Wilson S. Animals and Ethics, In: The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2006.
The Bible.
Holy Quran.
- Abstract Viewed: 53 times
- PDF Downloaded: 15 times
