حقوق الحيوان: مقدمة قصيرة جدًّا

Very Short Introductions #057

by David DeGrazia

هل تتمتع الحيوانات بحقوق معنوية؟ وإذا كانت الإجابة بنعم، فما الذي يعنيه هذا؟ ما طبيعة الحياة العقلية للحيوانات؟ وكيف ينبغي أن نفهم رفاهتها؟ في هذا الكتاب من سلسلة «مقدمة قصيرة جدًّا»، يقدِّم ديفيد ديجراتسيا إجاباته على هذه الأسئلة، ثم يتبعها بتناول تبعات كيفية معاملة الحيوانات فيما يتعلق بغذائنا، والحدائق التي نحتفظ بها فيها، والبحوث التي نجريها عليها.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Animals, Politics, Audiobook, Science, History

135 pages, Unknown Binding

First published January 1, 2002

About the author

David DeGrazia is an American moral philosopher specializing in bioethics and animal ethics. He is Professor of Philosophy at George Washington University, where he has taught since 1989.

Reviews

[Amirography · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very precise and good book. It does a good job to cover arguments for and against Animal rights, from the standpoint of different schools of ethics.

[ياسمين Thabet · Rating 4 out of 5]

من افضل كتب المجموعة
اضاف الي الكثير من المعلومات الرائعة
معنى ان يكون الحيوان لديه احساس
معنى الالم
الفرق بين الالم والمعاناه
حقوق الحيوان ام حقوق ممتلكه
كتاب يطرح تساؤلات كثيرة ويجيب عليها
يستحق الاقتناء

[Lea · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good philosophical introduction to Animal Rights. I can see how people not used to analytical philosophy might find it too dry, but if you're looking for solid arguments and contextualisation this is a good start.

[Anthony · Rating 4 out of 5]

A solid primer on the conversations surrounding Animal Rights. The author covers philosophical topics from suffering, pain and the implication of death for animals.

I've been vegan for two years now and for someone who's learning about the implications of factory farming and why the consumption of animals is unjust, this short introduction is a great starting point for someone to gain familiarity with this topic.

At times the introduction chapters can get a bit confusing and dense with his models and theories. Once you push past that and understand his main points, the rest becomes a lot more understandable having the base knowledge.

Would recommend diving into the works of Peter Singer and the list he attached towards the end for a further conversation.

If you're looking more into this subject and would like to see some footage of the way animals are treated in these poor and cruel conditions. I'd recommend watching the attached video!

https://youtu.be/LQRAfJyEsko

[Mohamed al-Jamri · Rating 3 out of 5]

My notes while reading the book:

Chapter 1: Introduction

Campaign to ban battery caging chinckens (small cages) after breaking into a chicken factory and making a fotage which showed bad treatment.

Animal moral status vs. Human beings?

Historical sketch

Aristotle, Pythagoras. Christianity. Judaism. Islam. Descartes. Other western thinkers such as Jeremy Benthem, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, J.S. Mill, Hobbes, Locke, Shopenhauer etc.

Charles Darwin "difference is in degree and not in kind".

Eastern ideas. Ginism, Hindism and Buddism. Respect for all life. Against animal sacrifice. Confuciusism: oneness of all life.

Native Americans: spirits. Respectful killing and consumption of animals.

Modern animal rights movement in the English speaking world. For anasthesia before killing. Started in 19th century, but declined later. Revived in mid-20th century along with human rights and environmental movements. The demise of Behaviorism helped too. Scientific acceptance of animal awareness and consciousness helped too. Peter Singer's Liberation of Animals.

Founding of Green Peace in 1971 and others. Legislations to protect animals. Changes to animal research. Increase of moral vegetarianism.

Animal moral status, which animals, what are their minds like, what constitutes harm, ethics of meat eating, of aquiring pets or putting them in jail, ethics of experimenting on animals.

Chapter 2: The moral status of animals

Who wouldn't be against unnecessary harm and cruelty to animals? [One might ask why that position is taken, maybe not for the sake of animals, but for the same of not becoming a cruel person; i.e. for your own moral compus not dying or fading. Addresses this point.]

Dogs with moral status independent of human beings? How important vs human rights? The meanings of "rights" and different approaches to it.

Sentience (feelings, pain and emotions). Equality in what sense? Cats certainly don't have the right to go to school. Different rights. What about considerations? Author argues both are equal here, in cases such as avoiding suffering. [But don't humans like Shopenhauer said have more capability to suffer?]

In total 3 considerations:
1. The moral status (they have at least some rights in their own)
2. Equal concideration
3. The utility consideration

In equal conciderations he argues that freedom to travel is equal between humans and (other) animals.

Anti-animal prejudice is due to human perspective interests - just like racial ideas were. The burden of proof is on the person claiming inequal concideration. What difference justifies this?

Two equal concideration theories:
1. Utilitarianism.

Speciesist argument. It is not self-evident. Needs further justification.

Biological difference between humans and chimps very small: 1.6%. What about extinct hominid species? No clear line. Why only take soecies and not family or order etc? No clear justification.

Speciesism is no more justified than racism or sexism.

Contract theory. Doesn't this mean cruelty to animals becomes okay since they can't make a contract? What about non-rational humans (infants and mentally disabled)? [Couldn't humans have a contract not to unnecessarily harm animals and non-rational humans? He counters this and other similar arguments such as social stability.]

Appeal to moral/rational agency. Principle of reciprocity. Moral rights need moral responsibilities/obligations. What about humans who don't have the ability to become moral agents or have moral obligations?

Appeal to social bonds. Opens the door for racism.

Appeal to common sense moral differences regarding assistance and killing. Calls this the most powerful challenge to equal consideration.

Asserts that despite equal conciderations, continued life is less centeral to a dog than to a human, who afterall has life plans, projects, deep relationships etc. I.e. the interests are not equal even if conciderations are. [This I can agree with].

He then states that the above is very hard to prove and that this is an unresolved issue.

A scale of hierarchy of cognition. Humans on tops then apes and dolphins then reptiles then fish then invertebrates.

Another scale of hierarchy of moral status/moral concideration. Based on priorities.

Chapter 3: What are animals like

Questions on their feelings and consciousness. They do have this, even if they are less complicated than humans. Evolutionary argument for pain in sentient animals. Pleasure, pain, distress, suffering, fear and anxiety.

Argues against the immortal soul argument, and the language argument (babies don't have language but have feelings). Fear shows that animals have temporal awareness.

Chapter 4: The harms of suffering, confinement and death

Painless death about entities that do not understand it, is still harm [I disagree here and see his argument as weak].

[Well maybe he has a point. A dog with broken legs will suffer less when killed than when treated, since the process of putting it in cast will take months. Yet we see that in view of future joy that it will be harmed by a premature death. This is independent of our own interest and is from the point of view of dog interests].

Chapter 5: Meat eating

Describes the harsh life of animals in factory farms up to food plate (chicken, hog, cow).

Legislations in USA are weak and often not enforced. In EU the legislation is better.

Meat eating is not necessary for humans; it's for pleasure. Massive unnecessary harm for animals is caused by humans who do it for profit and pleasure. Supporting factor farms by any means is morally indefensible.

Meat has negative health effects. Protein grain is enough for feeding poor countries. Work conditions at factories are bad for workers.

Economic argument. Rebuttal.

Seafood.

Chapter 6: keeping pets and zoo animals

Acceptable if all physical and psychological needs of an animal are provided for. Standard should be just like that of adopting human babies.

Against radical ideas of letting domistic animals go extinct and zoo animals not copulate. No sane person would just advocate leaving animals alone. Animals like babies lack consent and humans must decide for them.

Zoo stands for zoological park. They should stimulate natural habitats as much as possible.

Zoos should cultivate respect for animals and not present them in a way that suggests they are here for humans sake only (disrespect for animals).

Against keeping dulphins in zoos, because stimulating their natural environment with all its vastness is impossible. Very have big brains too.

Chapter 7: Animal research

Examples of unethical experiments.

The moral case for animal research is stronger than that of factory farms. There are many regulations for research and they harm animals much less. Also its benefits are of high value and not for mere pleasure.

Modern animal rights movement and legislation to protect animals.

3 R's strategy (reduction, refinement and replacement). Legislation evolution. Developments in education and testing.

The idea I had in mind before reading this book is what the author calls the "indirect duty", if you are cruel to animals you may be cruel to humans too. I.e. humans are the main focus.

The book provides arguments without a commitment to a specific moral theory. It argues on many bases and for different conciderations. Equal concideration vs sliding scale. For death harmful based on opportunities POV or not harmful based on desire POV.

Also no moral condemnation or bashing.

[Lexidreams · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is more an animal rights introduction from a philosophical perspective. A very scientific, rational man's kind of argument: Animals have rights for these and these reasons until proven otherwise. That's the part about this book I found pretty problematic. The debate (and he does oh so much like the debate facet if it) on whether we should care about or continue contributing to nonhuman animal suffering and exploitation occurs far away and closed off from that very suffering. There's an air about this book that just seemed ridiculous to me, but I do not come from a philosophy perspective. Saying later down the line maybe we will change our minds is to me not an appealing moral position for nonhuman or human rights, and I think it is flawed. (Yes, perhaps we may always begin to think differently when provided with new information but repeating it so explicitly over and over seems to place animal rights on unnecessarily shaky foundations. Indeed, you would never hear ex) LGBT activists say give us rights until you can prove cis-heterosexuality is godly or whatever, or enslaved human people saying give us rights until you find evidence of our 'inferiority'. In order for a rights movement to be strong, the basis for granting rights is likely already strong, making such caveats ridiculous and harmful.)
For an alternative view, A. Breeze Harper wrote a great blog post critiquing how certain types of 'intellectualism' tend to get legitimized over others (i.e. white, male, human).

I am probably not this book's target audience as I was already pretty involved in animal rights but still I thought this small book might offer me a few new insights. It seemed to be going well at first but when I hit page 60 I decided I was done and threw the book across the room, fed up. I wish I could describe succinctly exactly what bothered me about this book (perhaps my inability to express my feelings in human language means I'm not feeling anything at all, huh?). The philosophical tone of the book was just not for me and there were far too many cases of anthropocentrism. For example, he believes, along with the likes of Peter Singer, that death harms humans more. He also makes numerous mentions to the evolutionary hierarchy (the organization of the species of the world which oh so conveniently and I'm sure coincidentally places humans on top of everyone else) even after seemingly critiquing it.

Most animal rights books I have read have given me a new way of seeing the world; this one did not. It plays almost a devil's advocate role, going through the arguments on why (Western) humans believe they can exploit and harm nonhuman animals for their interests, and I was not satisfied with the strength of this book's rebuttals.

I think Joan Dunayer's Speciesism would make a far better introduction to animal rights.

[Asalla Othman · Rating 3 out of 5]

بدايةً .. الترجمة أسوأ من حظي للأسف 🌚 ..
ثانياً الكتاب خفيف لطيف ومفيد ومهم و من الضروري ان ينسخ ويوزع بالطائرات على الوطن العربي الذي يعتبر الحيوانات تارةً وصف للشتم وتقليل القيمة وطور لتفريغ عقده النفسية وفي كل محفل يسحب بطاقته الرابحة " عأساس " ليقول لك " خلينا نهتم بحقوق الإنسان بعدين نلتفت لحقوق الحيوان " .. سأحاول باختصار أن أوضح بشكل سريع أهم الأفكار ..
لقد قال أرسطو بأن الحيوانات _ رغم افتقارها للعقل _ تمتلك إدراكاً حسياً ، وأنها أقل من البشر في المرتبة الطبيعية.. " لكن بالواقع تم تفنيد ادعاء انها اقل واثبات ان الحيوانات الحساسة تستحق اعتبار متساوي مع الإنسان في تفادي المعاناة..
فقد يرى البعض وفق رؤية الواجب المباشر أن التزاماتنا وواجباتنا لاتتوجه إلا نحو البشر الآخرين ، وحتى حين نقوم بأي التزام اتجاه حيوان فنحن نقوم به بناءً على رؤية تقول بأن القسوة اتجاه الحيوان تضر بالبشر وبهذا نحن لانلتزم أخلاقياً بأفعال جيدة اتجاه الحيوانات إلا لنتجنب آثارها السيئة على الإنسان "رأي كانط" وبالرغم من رجاحة الاعتقاد القائل بأن ممارسة القسوة اتجاه الحيوان تجعل الإنسان شريراً وعلى الغالب سيسيء معاملة البشر على المدى الطويل إلا أنه من المهم أن نبتعد عن الأفعال القاسية السيئة اتجاه الحيوان لأجله هو فقط وليس لأي اعتبار آخر متعلق بمصلحتنا الشخصية..
فقد يميل بعض الناس إلى الاعتقاد أن مصلحة الإنسان تتعارض مع مصلحة الحيوانات من حيث أكل اللحوم والأبحاث والآفات لذلك أخذ مصلحة الحيوان مأخذ الجد سيؤثر سلباً على البشر وهذا التحيز المدفوع بالمصلحة الذاتية وهذا يقع عليه عبء البينة .. لم مصلحتك مقدمة على مصلحة الحيوان ؟
بسبب العقل ؟ هذا يعني ان الطفل وبعض المرضى العقليين لاتشملهم أي حقوق!
بسبب وجود خطط مستقبلية وأهداف للإنسان غير متوفرة لدى الحيوان ؟! إذا يصبح قتل الأجنة في الأرحام والأطفال أيضاً فعل مقبول لأنهم لايملكون بعد خطط مستقبلية وأهداف ..
في النهاية يجب أن نعرف ان التزاماتنا السلبية اتجاه الآخرين لها ذات الأهمية التي تمتلكها التزاماتنا الإيجابية اتجاه المقربين ، فأنا يحظر عليّ خطف أطفال الآخرين أو إساءة معاملتهم أو قتلهم بغض النظر عن مدى قربي لهم بينما اتحمل التزامات ايجابية اتجاه أطفالي بتوفي أشياء محددة والإقرار بأن على الأطفال في العالم جميعاً أن يتمتعوا بالحقوق نفسها ، فالاحتكام إلى الروابط الاجتماعية لجنسنا بسبب العلاقات التي تربطنا بهم وبمصالحهم لاتعطينا الحق بإيذاء الآخرين لأنهم ينتمون لجنس مختلف " الحيوانات"
_ المعاملة الصائبة للحيوانات البرية هو تركها وشأنها لأن مساعدتها قد تسبب ضرر موازي لصيدها حيث تشكل مساعدة نوع مفترس لنوع آخر بإلحاق الضرر بنوع الفريسة واختلال التوازن البيئي..
ختاماً .. أي ضرر قد يلحق بك كبشر ويسبب لك شعور بالمعاناة قد يعطي الأثر ذاته على الحيوانات ومعاناتهم ليست أقل من معاناتك واعتبارها ليس أقل من اعتبارك ..
إنها كائنات تشعر .. تخاف ، تتألم ، تقلق ، حتى أنها تحزن .. ومن حقها ألا تشعر بهذه الأحاسيس ومن المفترض ألا يكون الإنسان سبباً في ذلك لكي يحافظ على سمته الأساسية "الإنسانية "

[jzthompson · Rating 3 out of 5]

I started this book agnostic on the subject of "animal rights" but prepared to be persuaded otherwise, having finished it I am still agnostic, perhaps less persuadable, but with a more thought through position of the weaknesses of both the strong animal rights argument and, contrarily, the weaknesses of a *total* failure to factor the interests of animals into whatever utilitarian computations we happen to be running at any given moment.

The VSI starts poorly with a historical sketch that contrasts nasty "Western" - an axis of Aristotle, the Bible and Descartes - thinking of animals as undeserving of rights in the sense scoped for by this book (compared explicitly with other groups such as women and slaves that "Western" values denied equal rights) with the more enlightened Mystic East and the much vaunted Native Peoples of the Americas. This stuff only takes a couple of pages though and David DeGrazia looks like he was about in the 60s when such an approach was trendy rather than patronising so perhaps I can let him off.

We then move onto the section of the book that was by far and away the most successful and the closest the book got to persuading me of it's central argument with a section that argued that animals are deserving of "equal consideration" - knocking back arguments to the contrary through a series of well constructed thought experiments and rhetorical questions. DeGrazia is even confident enough in his argument to give the biggest challenges to equal consideration a fair hearing and to conclude the matter is unsettled.

DeGrazia also proposes an alternative model to his preferred "Equal Consideration" that I think most people will find inherently more convincing; the "Sliding Scale Model" where animals are due more consideration depending on their level of development. I think DeGrazia's formulation of this - with Great Apes, then cetaceans, then other mammals, sliding down to cephalopods and other invertebrates at the bottom - owes more to which animals he finds personally appealing than objective assessment of different animal's intelligence* but that's a question of finesse.

Sadly I found the second part of the book- where DeGrazia considers individual animal rights questions such as factory farming, keeping animals in zoos and animal testing - much less effective.
One minute zoos are described as "prisons" a bit later on the goal of preservation of individual species is described as a purely human concern. Animals are either anthropomorphic enough to have a concept of being imprisoned or so distant from our concerns that a goal they are unaware of such as the survival of their species is an imposition.** This kind of thing might work in a lecture hall but is weaker in a book where you can flip between the rhetorical twirls over a couple of pages.

To his credit DeGrazia is mostly honest about the weaknesses of the "Strong Animal Rights" argument - warning us, for example, against overly romantacising life in THE WILD compared to domestication*** and being more even handed to the scientists involved in animal testing than most advocates of a strong animal rights position.

Sadly then in the final chapter he goes a little bit off the rails by overly crediting animal rights activists with improvements in the treatment of lab animals and playing down the role the self correcting mechanisms of science have played in this.**** Perhaps, again, this is an uneasily understandable bias but the implication that the "three R's" of animal testing - replace, reduce, refine - are driven by animal rights activism rather than the development of better scientific methodologies *by scientists* is troubling. DeGrazia says:


"Tradition, of course, breeds habits, and habits.. die slowly. Moreover some leaders in biomedicine who feared animal rights activisits felt that accepting alternatives would convey to the public they were giving in."

But by and large scientists aren't experimenting on animals because they enjoy it or because they can't admit they were wrong - just like they aren't inventing global warming to ring grants out of the gullible government - and if some scientists have a poor view of animal rights activists it is because of instances of violence against those involved in animal testing.

The biggest weaknesses of the book though come from the proposed solutions, instead of preserving species in zoos perhaps it would be better for man to stop devastating the environment, instead of experimenting on animals for new medical treatment perhaps we could use lab grown alternatives.

If we do not destroy ourselves over the next fifty years I'd like to think both will happen.. Sadly though we are someway away from that happy time. If we want to see the advancements in the human condition that are needed for that moral leap forward - and if in the meantime we want to preserve animals like the great apes, the african elephant or the rhino so that they can enjoy that future with us - we are going to need the imperfect methods DeGrazia finds unpalatable rather than impossibilist "solutions" of the sort on offer here.

*Octopuses are pretty smart!

**An aside that I don't want to push too far as I've not thought it through properly; I was suprised at how similiar a lot of the Strong Animal Rights views (especially the ones that DeGrazia sets up as more extreme contrasts to his own position) sounded like Libertarian ones - only with kangaroos and polar bears instead of Texan oil barons.

***It's a particularly bloody minded animal rights activist that thinks Fido would be better off competing with urban foxes for the output of our wheely bins.

****His main example of the evils of animal testing - the barbaric experiments of Harry Harlow - have been strongly criticised by scientists both for their cruelty and for their lack of worth as science. From the ever reliable wikipedia:

"Willam Mason, another of Harlow's students who continued deprivation experiments after leaving Wisconsin,[22] has said that Harlow "kept this going to the point where it was clear to many people that the work was really violating ordinary sensibilities, that anybody with respect for life or people would find this offensive. It's as if he sat down and said, 'I'm only going to be around another ten years. What I'd like to do, then, is leave a great big mess behind.' If that was his aim, he did a perfect job

[Ali Elgarby · Rating 4 out of 5]

بما اني مش شخص ميال للفلسفة بطبعي، بتواجهني مشكلة دايما ف قراءة الكتب اللي من النوع ده اللي بتحتاج تفكير كتير ومش بتساعدك اوي انك تتبنى وجهة نظر معينة وبيني وبينكم ده الطبيعي فأي كتاب بيحترم نفسه يعني 😅🤷🏻
لكن بكون أبطئ شوية فالكتب إللى بتناقش مشكلة فلسفية عشان أسيب الأفكار تنطبخ فدماغي
الكتاب جيد جدا كمقدمة لأي حد عموما والناس المهتمة بالموضوع ده من زمان - زي حالاتي كدة - بشكل خاص، والجميل فيه انه موضح كل حاجة ع مهل كدة ومش مختصر بطريقة تلخبط.
-كنت أتمنى بس الصور الملحقة تكون مهمة اكتر شوية او بتوضح الكلام فعلا مش مجرد صور عامة كدة بالذات ان الموضوع ده في صور كتير جدا من كذا مصدر ممكن توضح العذاب اللي بيتعرضله الحيوانات من البشر بأشكال مختلفة، وبأساليب وأغراض مالهاش عدد، ده غير المبررات🙄
- كمان حسيت انه كان ممكن يكون الكتاب إصدار احدث شوية فيه تحديث للإجراءات اللي اتاخدت فالمجال ده، يعني حسيته قديم شوية

[Ciaran McGuiggan · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this when I first became vegetarian and wanted to read it again on my 10 year anniversary. It is way more academic than I remembered but was really useful to reaffirm in my head what it means to be sentient, what it means to not be sentient, animal rights vs animal welfare, and how suffering happens in animals in so many different ways. It has made me rethink how I can continue to reduce suffering personally. Its also been useful to read since getting a puppy and my approach to his wellbeing (is crating him ok? Is he getting enough time outside etc).

[Jeanne · Rating 4 out of 5]

Clear overview of the several pressing issues regarding the human moral stance towards non-human animals. I would have enjoyed a wrap-up concluding chapter, but seeing it is A Very Short Intro, I get why it was left out.
Some information does feel a little bit dated by now, but it is still very useful as an introductory read.

[avinash · Rating 4 out of 5]

After watch scathing reviews of Animal and ton of people flooding the social media talking about the misogyny and condescending attitude displayed by the said Animal, I want to understand the other side of picture. Though Ranbir Kapoor did an exhilarating portrayal of the said life form, I want to know what basic rights do Animal have to ride this wave of criticism and needless to say this book tries to explain how we treat Animal and talks about the psychological, social and moral aspects.

Few key points that I made during the course of the book and thanks to ChatGPT it looks like a colossal clusterfuck.

#Chapter 1: The Animal Rights Debate

- Kicks off by digging into the big moral and ethical questions about animal rights.
- Explains the difference between animal rights (animals have their own rights) and animal welfare (animals should be treated well but don’t necessarily have rights).
- Points out the clash: some people see animals as beings with moral value, others see them as resources for humans.

- Walks through the history of the animal rights movement from the 19th century to now.
- Mentions Jeremy Bentham, who said that the ability to suffer, not reason, should determine moral consideration.
- Talks about modern advocates like Peter Singer (utilitarianism) and Tom Regan (deontological ethics).

- Covers the philosophical bases:
- Utilitarianism (Peter Singer): Animals' capacity to suffer means they deserve moral consideration, aiming to maximize happiness and reduce suffering.
- Deontological ethics (Tom Regan): Animals have inherent value and rights, regardless of their usefulness to humans.

# Chapter 2: Arguments Against Animal Rights

- Looks at the idea that humans are superior to animals because of unique traits like reasoning and language. This is often used to justify not giving animals rights.
- Discusses the view that animals are property or resources. Legally, animals are often treated as property rather than beings with rights.
- Examines cultural practices involving animals (hunting, farming, entertainment) and how these traditions resist change.
- Raises practical concerns about the economic impact of giving animals rights and questions how feasible it is to implement and enforce these rights.
- Practical benefits of animal rights include potential health and environmental improvements. For example, eating less meat could lead to better health and a smaller environmental impact.

# Chapter 3: Arguments for Animal Rights

- Focuses on moral reasons: animals can feel pleasure and pain, so they deserve moral consideration. Ethical principles argue for respecting animals and not just using them as means to human ends.
- Talks about equal consideration: similar interests should be weighed equally, no matter the species, challenging the idea that human interests always come first.
- Utilitarian perspective (Peter Singer): Aim to maximize overall happiness and minimize suffering. Deontological approach (Tom Regan): Animals have inherent rights that must be respected.
- Fear and anxiety have similar functions in complimentary settings. Anxiety happens in an unfamiliar territory, hence it is less focused than fear. It happens when we think we might take a hit to the self image.

# Chapter 4: The Moral Status of Animals

- Looks at different criteria for determining the moral status of animals, like sentience, cognitive abilities, and emotional complexity. Sentience (capacity to feel pleasure and pain) is highlighted as crucial.
- Argues that many animals have significant cognitive and emotional capacities, challenging the view that only humans have moral worth (e.g., primates' problem-solving, elephants' emotional bonds).
- Discusses the idea of inherent value: animals have worth beyond their usefulness to humans, implying they deserve moral consideration and certain rights.
- Considers the legal and ethical implications of recognizing animals' moral status, suggesting this could lead to more humane treatment of animals.

# Chapter 5: Animals and Human Society

- Explores how humans use animals: food, research, entertainment, companionship. Each use raises ethical questions.
- Examines the ethics of using animals for food, arguing for vegetarianism and veganism based on animal suffering and environmental impact. Talks about alternatives to animal products.
- Meat eating is unnecessary. It is mostly a pleasurable thing and not a necessity. We can avoid unnecessary harm on animals.
- Debates the use of animals in research, balancing potential human health benefits against animal suffering. Considers alternatives to animal research.
- Critiques the use of animals in entertainment (circuses, zoos, sports), raising concerns about their treatment and purpose.
- Discusses animals as companions, recognizing mutual benefits in human-animal relationships. Emphasizes ethical pet care and responsibilities of pet ownership.
- Mistreating any animal without any compelling reason is morally wrong.

# Chapter 6: keeping pets, Zoos and The Future of Animal Rights

- Speculates on the future of the animal rights movement, considering both optimistic and pessimistic outcomes. Factors include societal attitudes, legal changes, and scientific advancements.
- Discusses potential legal reforms, like granting legal personhood to certain animals or improving welfare standards. Considers international cooperation.
- Bio medical research could be done without animal subjects.
- Talks about science and technology advances (lab-grown meat, alternative research methods) that could reduce reliance on animals.
- Emphasizes education and advocacy in changing public attitudes and promoting animal rights, highlighting grassroots movements and influential figures.
- Considers a possible paradigm shift where animals are seen as beings with inherent value and rights, requiring significant changes in laws, policies, and cultural practices.

# Conclusion

- Wraps up by stressing the importance of considering the moral and ethical treatment of animals, calling for a more compassionate and just approach.
- Highlights that recognizing animal rights is about changing both laws and societal attitudes. The goal is a world where animals are treated with dignity and respect.
- Encourages readers to reflect on their own practices and consider how they can support animal rights, through advocacy, lifestyle changes, or supporting relevant organizations.
- Animals are not tools for humans to use.

Overall a great read and can’t wait for Animal Park!

[Mohamed · Rating 4 out of 5]

تتساوي معاناة الحيوان فى الأهمية مع معاناة الإنسان وتمتلك الحيوانات مصالح حيوية كالبشر مثل حق الحرية (الحيوانات التي لديها أحساس )

يمثل الموت ضررا للحيوان حتى و إن كان لا يملك خطط مستقبلية (الفقاريات )

تتعرض الحيوانات لآلام مروعة داخل المزارع التجارية من اجل انتاج البيض و الألبان و اللحوم

لا حاجة للبشر لتناول اللحوم للحصول على البروتين (انتاج كيلو جرام واحد من البروتين الحيواني يكلف واحدا و عشرون جراما من البروتين النباتي

يجب توفير بيئه مناسبة للحيوانات الأليفة حال أقتنائها لا تقل عن بيئتها الطبيعية مع توافر شروط تعادل أستقبال فرد جديد داخل الاسرة و ليس من اجل الترفيه عن البشر


أشتملت الأبحاث العلمية على معاناة و أضرار للحيوانات

الكتاب يشكل خطوة جيدة نحو النباتية.

[Kathleen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good intro, but would have been a lot more helpful if the author had actually referenced specific authors when laying out various positions on animal rights issues. He lumps people into various categories (e.g. Sliding Scale folks) but doesn't name one or indicate who holds these views. The further reading section is just a list of bibliographic information, so it's not very helpful if you're trying to actually follow up on the positions he so nicely lays out in the book. A small problem, to be sure. But if the books in this series are meant to be a way into a topic, then that seems like an important thing to address.

[ariane · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent little book that clearly and concisely outlines the case for animal rights. Each chapter gave me plenty of food for thought, particularly Chapter 7 on animal research. I'm glad that I read this book before jumping into Singer or Regan. Highly recommended!

[Alaa Taher · Rating 5 out of 5]

من أكثر الكتب التي استمتعت بها واستفدت منها...

[نجلاء · Rating 4 out of 5]

الترجمة سيئة ولكن عموماً استفدت من الكتاب ويستحق القراءة

[Kuang Ting · Rating 4 out of 5]

作者是一位美國喬治華盛頓大學的哲學系教授，專長當然就是動物哲學了，有時候覺得很好玩，竟然連這種"專長"都有，學術研究真的包山包海。本書出版於2002年，已經將近20年了，動物權益在21世紀獲得了更廣泛的關注，因此書中提及的一些議題顯得有點過時了，不過因為它是一本哲學性質的研討，關於動物權益的邏輯推演依然值得一讀。

我想再一次強調這是一本哲學性質的讀物，因此閱讀起來會覺得比較無趣，讀過哲學的朋友應該知道哲學辯論的方式:捍衛或批評一種立場，希望透過前後呼應的邏輯支持自己的論點，或推翻對方(自己不認同)的論點。有時候這種討論可以充滿激情，讀者會跟著作者的論證而大呼過癮(不誇張)，因為你會覺得"天啊!竟然還可以用這種方式證明自己!"最終導出的結論令人心服口服。反之，有些哲學家的討論就很中規中矩，甚至一板一眼，讀者當然能夠收穫許多，只是推演的過程比較乏味而已，本書就是這種典型。

現在社會普遍已經有了共識，動物是有權利的，牠們也是生命體，尊重與保護動物是理所當然的責任。這種概念其實是近五十年才浮現的，20世紀中葉以前大多數西方國家認為動物是次等生物，跟人類這種高級生物無法比較，動物並不適用類似"人權"的種種概念，動物並沒有知覺、感官、靈魂...等等，牠們不具備人類的情感和意識，因此動物不像人類一樣高貴，動物是人類的財產，牠們必須服膺於人類的掌控之下。抱持著這種信念，人類歷史上充斥著殺戮動物的行為，例如鬥牛、以娛樂為目的的打獵...等等。

漸漸的，環保意識在全球蔓延開來，越來越多人開始質疑這種以人為尊的概念是不正確的，呼籲人類應該賦予動物跟人類同等的地位。這本書就是以此為目標，從哲學的角度導出動物的確與人類一樣，值得被尊重和保護，動物並不次等於人類，而是平起平坐。書中的推論很複雜，我無法簡短的在此摘要，總之動物跟人類一樣具有道德地位(moral status)，假如人類要對動物做任何事情，都得從動物本身的角度出發，衡量是否會對牠們造成傷害，假如可能會造成傷害，這些事情是否值得繼續下去呢?還是有其他更好的方法，減輕甚至消除動物的傷害呢?

作者舉了三個主要的例子: 人類飼養動物當食物、動物圈養、動物研究。以動物研究為例，支持者宣稱動物研究是絕對必須的，因為這樣可以促進人類醫學的進步，進一步也能增進人類對動物生理的理解，進而增加救治牠們的機會。這個論點看似合情合理，不過其實有許多值得商議的空間，例如我們怎麼肯定動物研究的結果能夠套用在人體上? ；有一些研究根本是不必要的，比如化妝品的動物研究，有一個很惡名昭彰的測試就是把化妝品塗在兔子的眼睛上，看哪種劑量會造成兔子眼睛壞死；這種純粹帶給動物傷害的研究沒有存在的合理性。進一步設想，就算某些動物研究確實值得一試，人類也必須努力減輕潛在的傷害，比如增加統計的精準度，讓參與動物的數量越少越好。

本書的內容扎實，但稍微無趣一點。如果你希望增強動物權利的認知，本書能夠給予你理由去支持動物保護的行動。我們人類是唯一可以保護動物的物種，也是唯一可以摧毀所有生靈的物種。

[Montgomery I. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Another very short introduction book which will likely gain from an update. Still, chapter 3 and 4 will be the most valuable for the reader (what animals are like & the harms of suffering, confinement, and death), as they discuss qualities which make animals subject to moral considerations. In my opinion he gives approaches not related to suffering and pain (in the broadest sense) too little space, however. Meat eating (ch 5) is rather disappointing. It is mostly a summary of the way we "produce food" and only partially a discussion on principled grounds. I was surprised that the role of biodiversity for ecosystem survival is given little weight when it comes to the survival of species and conservation programs.

All in all the author let's the reader explicitly known he is biased, but still gives a fair account of the subject matter. It really is an introduction. Compared the many other books of the series it is very easy to digest... Maybe too easy. The reader will learn relatively little new she hasn't heard or read elsewhere. Maybe that's also the strength of the book, depending on who reads it: As it is easy to read and his points are indeed hard to argue against, it might at make some people have second thoughts.

[Notael Elrein · Rating 5 out of 5]

Just like the title says it goes over the basic animal rights questions and concerns in academic language. I need to read more books like this and a lot of vegan books don’t have this academic flair to them, the language itself is a bit harder to get into, but I think it's important for me to familiarise myself with it.

I like the section on zoos because I still don��t have a clue or much thoughts on them, I saw some vegans write books in settings which have them which confused me. I think being fine with species dying out is a new concept I must digest, it makes sense although it is the most unfortunate that it does.

It goes over more basic stuff at the start like sentience, but it was also very cool to hear about animal testing at the end and how there are alternatives. Not a lot of animals get tested when you compare it to how many get farmed, but it is still millions that get experimented in questionably required ways.

I love how large the index of this book is, you can really get a good list of animal rights books to read from it. These are the books we must read and must put into our heads, this is the study of empathy 101 because it’s about our most oppressed.

[Ahmad Sharif · Rating 3 out of 5]

لوقت طويل ظلت المصادر الرئيسة للتفكير التقليدي لمكانة الحيوانات الأدبية والمعنوية مستمدة من الأديان، وتمثلت نظرتها العامة في ضرورة معاملة الحيوانات برحمة. لكن إلى أيّ مدى تكون هذه الرحمة؟ وكيف تدركها الحيوانات؟ ذلك ما حاول كتاب حقوق الحيوان، الإجابة عنه؛ إذ وضح وجهات النظر العلمية حول طبيعة الحيوانات من حيث درجة الوعي والإدراك بالمعاناة والتي تشمل سمات شعورية عديدة؟ وهل تستوي كل الحيوانات في ذلك أم لا؟ وما دامت الحيوانات تعي، فهل يجوز مساواتها مع البشر في المعاملة؟ أم سنساير زعم أرسطو القائل بامتلاك الحيوانات إدراكًا حسيًا رغم افتقارها للعقل، وإنها أقل من البشر في المرتبة الطبيعية، ومن ثم تمثِّل موارد تلائم الأغراض الإنسانية. ومن هذه الأغراض: الترويح كما يحدث في حدائق الحيوان، وكمورد غذائي، وأيضًا في الأغراض البحثية كفئران التجارب المستخدمة في المحتبرات الطبية. وإذ ما رضخنا لوجهة النظر الأخيرة؟ أيكون استخدام البشر للحيوانات بغير ضوابط؟ أم يلزم إعادة الاتفاق على إطار نضمن من خلاله ممارسات رحيمة بالحيوانات وفق قناعة بامتلاكها مساحة من الوعي والإحساس بالمعاناة؟
ما سبق مساحة للنقاش طرحها ديفيد ديجراتيسا، وبلا مراء يستحق أن يشغل كل قلب يحيا بيننا.

[the_abinator · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am a social scientist who has been working adjacent to animal scientists for a few years. I also did a philosophy degree in undergrad alongside my anthropology degree so the content should not be new to me. Nevertheless given I have mostly thought about animals in th context of agriculture and not in ethical terms in the broader sense, a lot of the material was somewhat new though sadly many of the examples and policies are now outdated. This book quite successfully covers almost all ground for one to decide what to do about animals in regards to agriculture, zoos and research. The only two slightly disappointing things about this book are that it's due an update (my version is old, perhaps it was already updated?) as this is a fast moving area of research and the fact it didn't provide arguments against the evolutionary argument for eating animals. Possibly it's too weak from a moral standpoint but it's a common enough argument to require attention.

[M. Ashraf · Rating 3 out of 5]

It is a good passionate book with very good arguments but at the end of the day you are dealing with the Human race at a whole! Yes, philosophy ethics and morals are there for some or many but as a whole they will move over it as long as it is in our gain and interest.
"The human race is just like the cancer virus, We spread so fast and destroy everything in our path." for us it is great! it is progress! we will colonize the Moon and terraform Mars to be a new Earth. But to the planet - global warming - and to the thousands extinct species we are the cause of that.
Maybe they will retaliate with the bird or swine flue but we persevere.
You have to see factory farming in person to get a sense of really what that like not in reading nor a documentary!
A good book, one sided, passionate, very short, well written 3.5/5

[Alexhounder · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's a difficult book to rate as it does what it says on the tin, but it's not an exceptional book. So 4 stars.

I've read other books on animal rights due to work and personal interest, but this is the first one I've read by DeGrazia, whom, I believe, is a big player in the philosophy of animal rights and ethics arena. It's well written, and is as accessible as it can be considering the topic and length of the book.

And it has pictures!

I have a few of DeGrazias' other works on my book wishlist - I will definitely read more by him.

[Sivasothi N. · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was an objective overview of the arguments surrounding animal rights. The western world’s exploitation of animals has also nurtured the emergence of strong, well reasoned advocates against harm to animal life, whose advancements have ensures better care of animals in the east as well.

This was a good summary which I read to devise a discussion of the issues with my undergraduate class. Loaned the e-book from NLB.

[Ilo · Rating 3 out of 5]

Whilst I disagree with the author on various points and find his justifications for denying (some/most/all) animals various rights questionable (such as respecting their autonomy as we do that of humans), this is a good introduction to examining animal rights from a philosophical perspective.
Other than that the book contains some outdated and questionable information with regards to some claims, but as the book is now 19 years old the dated information is to be expected.

[Linda Is on her way · Rating 2 out of 5]

I couldn't finish it. I listened to about 25%. It was very matter of fact and I couldn't really concentrate, neither did I find it interesting. I wanted to learn about animal rights and how they came to be and so on. Wouldn't really recommend this to someone who isn't already a bit more informed about the topic. The term introduction is therefore in my eyes a bit misleading

[Monur B. · Rating 1 out of 5]

Hayvan haklarına zerre kadar katkıda bulunmayan masabaşı felsefi mastürbasyonlar. Hayvan haklarını cidden arayan, araştıran ve öğrenmek isteyen biriyseniz bu kitaptan uzak durun. Okurken kaç kere yere çaldığımı hatırlamıyorum. Tam anlamıyla yapay entel muhabbetleri.

[Morgan Holdsworth · Rating 4 out of 5]

interesting pocket sized guide to each of the ethical approaches one can take towards animals. with less hot takes than singer's animal liberation i would argue these arguments will likely stand the test of time

[Kaleb · Rating 2 out of 5]

Even with the qualification that this book is over 20 years old, the chapter on zoos was so uninformed on how zoos actually work that it undercut the conclusions of the chapter and made me question the quality of the editing process.