Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Arts and Humanities (3)
- Anthropology (2)
- Bioethics and Medical Ethics (2)
- Ethics and Political Philosophy (2)
- Life Sciences (2)
-
- Medicine and Health Sciences (2)
- Philosophy (2)
- Politics and Social Change (2)
- Sociology (2)
- Agribusiness (1)
- Animal Experimentation and Research (1)
- Animals (1)
- Behavior and Ethology (1)
- Biological and Physical Anthropology (1)
- Business (1)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (1)
- Comparative and Laboratory Animal Medicine (1)
- Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (1)
- Film and Media Studies (1)
- Law (1)
- Nutrition (1)
- Organisms (1)
- Other Anthropology (1)
- Other Film and Media Studies (1)
- Other Nutrition (1)
- Public Affairs, Public Policy and Public Administration (1)
- Public Policy (1)
- Research Methods in Life Sciences (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Social and Behavioral Sciences
Carl Cohen’S ‘Kind’ Arguments For Animal Rights And Against Human Rights, Nathan Nobis
Carl Cohen’S ‘Kind’ Arguments For Animal Rights And Against Human Rights, Nathan Nobis
Nathan M. Nobis, PhD
Carl Cohen’s arguments against animal rights are shown to be unsound. His strategy entails that animals have rights, that humans do not, the negations of those conclusions, and other false and inconsistent implications. His main premise seems to imply that one can fail all tests and assignments in a class and yet easily pass if one’s peers are passing and that one can become a convicted criminal merely by setting foot in a prison. However, since his moral principles imply that nearly all exploitive uses of animals are wrong anyway, foes of animal rights are advised to seek philosophical consolations …
The Harmful, Nontherapeutic Use Of Animals In Research Is Morally Wrong, Nathan Nobis
The Harmful, Nontherapeutic Use Of Animals In Research Is Morally Wrong, Nathan Nobis
Nathan M. Nobis, PhD
It is argued that using animals in research is morally wrong when the research is nontherapeutic and harmful to the animals. This article discusses methods of moral reasoning and discusses how arguments on this and other bioethical issues might be defended and critiqued. A basic method of moral argument analysis is presented and used to show that common objections to the view that “animal research is morally wrong” fail: ie, common arguments for the view that “animal research is morally permissible” are demonstrably unsound or in need of defense. It is argued that the best explanations why harmful, nontherapeutic research …
The “Babe” Vegetarians: Bioethics, Animal Minds And Moral Methodology, Nathan Nobis
The “Babe” Vegetarians: Bioethics, Animal Minds And Moral Methodology, Nathan Nobis
Nathan M. Nobis, PhD
Here I discuss the role the film “Babe” has played in helping people address these challenges and make this moral progress. It is thought that a significant number of young people (mostly girls, now young women) became vegetarians due to their seeing “Babe.” These people are often called “Babe Vegetarians,” influence by what has been called “The Babe Effect.” Many of their stories are found on the internet.
Tom Regan On ‘Kind’ Arguments Against Animal Rights And For Human Rights, Nathan Nobis
Tom Regan On ‘Kind’ Arguments Against Animal Rights And For Human Rights, Nathan Nobis
Nathan M. Nobis, PhD