Bossert2024 JAEE

Ambiente & Sociedade

The aim of this research is to verify the approach to the issue of animals and their rights adopted in events on sustainable development with global repercussions promoted by the United Nations Organization, in order to characterize the perspective and comprehensiveness of animal rights awareness. It expounds on lines of philosophical thinking regarding animals and their rights and how they are inserted in the discussion of sustainable development and sustainability. It is a qualitative research of an exploratory nature and its development is defined by a survey of United Nations documents. The results show a chronological sequence of initial concern with animal habitat, subsequently increased by the concern with animals in extinction and, more recently, the broadening of the perspective towards animals in general and in different contexts, ergo a more conscious approach to animal rights.

CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, 2018

Human interference to the environment is increasing day by day. As a result, the environment is facing complete destruction. Each member has an important role in the environment, they form a beautiful environment in harmony with each other. But human oppression destroyed and affected the other species of the environment. That's why the environment stand at the crucial point of the destruction today. Now we feel the urgency of analyzing it, when the environmental crises, like the exhaustion of natural resources and greenery, climate catastrophe, animal killings etc. are at doorstep. Human civilization has achieved significant progress in scientific, technological, industrial and economic fields, but all developments in these fields have been pursued, and are being pursued, at the high cost of exploitation and exhaustion of environment. Man cannot survive as a completely separate entity from the environment. Because the members of the environment are interdependent in relation to each other. So the environment must be protected. We have to protect other members of the environment as well as animals and to create a healthy and beautiful environment. Human are the most intelligent being of this world, who are capable of moral conduct. So they have responsibility to protect all members of the environment. We should overcome the narrowness of anthropocentric morality and to extend the circle of moral considerations to the ecocentic morality. The result will be a beautiful and healthy environment. In this paper, I will address the shortcomings of the anthropocentric approach to the moral consideration and try to show how the non-human beings can be included in moral consideration. That is, we will try to find a way to extend the circle of moral consideration from human-centric to leaving beings, where all living beings to be given respect. Finally, I will try to find out a guideline of on creating a healthy and peaceful environment through human friendly behavior towards animals by eliminating aggression and violence in society and environment.

Éthique et économique/Ethics and Economics, 16 (1), 2019, 2019

This paper proposes to argue that ecological justice that is rooted in an ecocentric approach to nature is the key to achieving integral human development which goes beyond 'development that is only worth our while'. Ecological justice is achievable if there is a clear understanding of relations at two distinct levels-one, the relation among humans and another between the entire human community and other elements of the ecosystem. These relations are the basis of the alliances that we form to address issues of integral human development. The focus of the paper is the second kind of alliance that is based on an understanding of the relation between the human and the non-human realm. However, an 'alliance' is normally formed between partners with equal standing. Is there a sense in which both humans and the non-human world can be considered to be 'equal partners in an alliance? The paper considers how one might establish this by examining diverse philosophical viewpoints that have addressed the issue of the treatment of non-human animals for anthropocentric ends. It discusses whether equality between parties is necessary for the formation of an alliance drawing extensively from ethical theories and examples from the world. From rights approach, recipients of justice, to care ethics, several theories offer guidance to support what would constitute a 'humane' approach to non-human animals. While these approaches crucially pin the broad perspective, they have not explicitly considered the role of an alliance between humans and non-human animals in achieving a basic level of wellbeing for the latter. Taking cues from the different kinds of 'ruling over' from Stuart Gray's understanding of the relation between humans and non-human nature, the paper seeks to establish that an alliance between humans and the non-human realm is possible even without committing to their equal status and this could form the basis of ecological justice and well-being. Keywords: environmental justice, integral human development, ecological justice, alliance beyond the human realm, ruling over nature RESUME Cet article défend l'idée que la justice écologique enracinée dans une approche écocentrique de la nature est la clé du développement humain intégral et dépasse le "développement qui ne vaut que pour nous". La justice écologique est réalisable s'il existe une compréhension claire des relations à deux niveaux distincts-l'un, la relation entre les humains et l'autre entre la communauté humaine tout entière et les autres éléments de l'écosystème. Ces relations constituent la base des alliances que nous formons pour résoudre les problèmes de développement humain intégral. Cet article est axé sur le deuxième type d'alliance qui repose sur la compréhension de la relation entre le monde humain et le monde non humain. Cependant, une alliance est normalement formée entre des partenaires de rang égal. Y at -il un sens dans lequel les humains et le monde non humain peuvent être considérés comme des partenaires égaux dans une alliance? L'article examine comment on pourrait établir cela en examinant divers points de vue philosophiques qui ont développé la question du traitement des animaux non humains à des fins anthropocentriques. Il aborde la question de savoir si l'égalité entre les parties est nécessaire à la formation d'une alliance reposant largement sur des théories éthiques et des exemples. De l'approche fondée sur les droits, en passant par l'éthique du care, plusieurs théories offrent des indications pour soutenir ce qui constituerait une approche humaine des animaux non humains. Bien que ces approches épousent de manière cruciale la perspective large, elles n'ont pas explicitement envisagé le rôle d'une alliance entre humains et animaux non humains dans l'atteinte d'un niveau de base de bien-être pour ces derniers. S'inspirant des différents types de décisions développées par Stuart Gray de la relation entre l'homme et la nature non humaine, l'article cherche à établir qu'une alliance entre l'homme et le monde non humain est possible, même sans s'engager à égalité de statut et cela pourrait constituer la base de la justice écologique et du bien-être. Mots-clés : Justice environnementale, développement humain intégral, justice écologique, alliance au-delà du domaine humain, domination de la nature JEL Classification: I39 Beyond the Human Realm 47

The emergence of an ecological consciousness is not in itself enough to resolve the issue of our treatment of non-human creatures. An ethical principle of a non-exploitative, sustainable civilization is the right of all sentient beings to exercise their natural powers in pursuit of their flourishing as individuals. To this end, this essay articulates the “vital-needs rights view” as a philosophical basis for reconciling animal rights with the satisfaction of human vital needs. The vital-needs rights view supports a defensible environmental ethic. Only by ascribing rights to sentient animals can an environmental ethic avoid an unacceptable degree of anthropocentrism. This is because only a rights-based environmental ethic can prohibit humans from significantly interfering with sentient animals where human vital needs are not at stake. Further, a rights view that permits significant interference where this is required for the satisfaction of human vital needs avoids problems that would otherwise plague a rights view. This rights-based environmental ethic suggests an alliance of animal rights with ecofeminism and with deep ecology, and necessitates an understanding of the connections among vital needs, capitalism, and environmental degradation.

The use of animals for meat, for hide, for their labour and in laboratories has been justified with the assumption that unlike humans, animals aren't fully sentient beings. • This book challenges that assumption with groundbreaking new research that brings into question everything we've ever thought about the ways animals experience the world. • Over twenty contributions from internationally-renowned experts on animal behaviour and agriculture include big names such as Jane Goodall, Tim Lang and Vandana Shiva. The complexities of animal behaviour revealed in the last few decades are astonishing, but what are the implications? In this book, internationally respected contributors are brought together for the first time to debate and attempt to answer these questions. The first sections discuss scientific and ethical perspectives on the consciousness, emotions and mental abilities of animals. Later sections address how human activities such as science, law, farming, food production, trade, development and education respect or ignore animals' sentience and welfare, and review the options for changes in our policies, our practices and our thinking. AUTHOR INFORMATION Jacky Turner is a freelance researcher and writer working on animal welfare. Joyce D'Silva is the former Chief Executive and current Ambassador for Compassion in World Farming Trust and is the co-editor of The Meat Business, also published by Earthscan.

Veterinarski Arhiv, 2022

What should we change in the future? As a consequence of the one health, one welfare and one biology concepts, for most of our decisions we should be less human-centred if we want our species and other species to survive. Humans are less special than many people think. People consider that we have moral obligations to the animals that we use and to the sustainability of systems. A system or procedure is sustainable if it is acceptable now and if its expected future effects are acceptable, in particular in relation to resource availability, the consequences of functioning and morality of action. Consumers may refuse to buy unacceptable products and pressurise retail companies and governments to ensure that they are not sold. Poor welfare of people, poor welfare of other animals, genetic modification, or harmful environmental effects may make systems unsustainable. Most of the public now think of farm and companion animals as sentient beings and have concerns about their welfare. There are many components of sustainability and all should be evaluated and scored. Examples of attempts to do this are life cycle analysis and evaluation of externalities for agricultural or other products. Some topics considered include: straw use; which animals to keep as pets; stray dogs; free-roaming cats; feedlots; silvopastoral systems; free-range cattle; preserving land for hunting; land-sparing or landsharing; zoos and conservation; and cell-culture of meat.

2006

Many environmental philosophers currently hold that animal liberation theories are not relevant to the development of the field of environmental ethics. Instead, they contend that the field is traversed most successfully within the context of ecocentric and/or wilderness perspectives. In this thesis, I utilize textual and conceptual analysis to argue that animal liberation theories are vital to environmental ethics. I examine and critique the reasons given by prominent environmental ethicists—including, most notably, John Rodman, Baird Callicott, Robert Elliot, and Val Plumwood—for marginalizing animal liberation views within environmental ethics. While most of human-centered ethics has rested on a human/nature dichotomy in which the human side is overvalued, much of environmental ethics (especially that developed by ecocentric and wilderness proponents) rests on the same dichotomy, but weights the value on the nature side instead. I hold that many of the reasons for claiming that animal liberation theories fall outside of the scope of environmental ethics rest on a commitment to the nature/human dualism. I maintain that our contemporary world is not divided into the natural and the human, but, rather, consists of an ongoing, shifting relationship between human and nonhuman nature. I claim that the appropriate aim of environmental ethics is to explore the human relationship to the nonhuman natural world, and that this aim cannot be accomplished by theories committed to a human/nature dualism. I conclude that, by focusing on the significance of our choices as human beings in relationship to morally considerable others, the animal liberation movement offers us a way to theorize about environmental issues that transcends the human/nature dichotomy. This project is morally and politically compelling because the way in which environmental ethics as a field is defined has ramifications not only for the relationship of individual nonhuman animals to the natural environment, but for the relationship of humans to the natural environment as well. Looking at the relationship between human and nonhuman nature allows us to address the human roles and responsibilities not simply in the human community, but in the broader context of nonhuman nature as well.

Proceedings, 2021

At the UN-level, it has only recently been acknowledged that the welfare of animals is not, but should be, part of the sustainable development agenda. With the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the interconnections between animal welfare and protection on the one hand, and on the other hand, ecosystem destruction, species extinction, the climate crisis, industrial animal agriculture and the emergence of zoonoses, have come to the fore. Arguments have also been made that sustainability and animal protection is something of an oxymoron with, in particular, farm animals being treated as vehicles to achieve sustainability rather than being agents who under a justice perspective should be beneficiaries of the sustainability transition. To address the un/sustainabilities in the nexus of animals and sustainability, critical theory perspectives draw out pathways for transformation. Critical Sustainability Studies is being formulated. Critical Animal Studies is already well established. Both converge in what could develop into a new field, Interspecies Sustainability Studies. Moreover, we are observing the birth of another new field, the Veterinary Humanities, with indications of a Critical Veterinary Humanities emerging. In this paper, it is discussed what critical theory perspectives bring to the intersection of animals and global sustainability. In conclusion, it is suggested that interspecies sustainability needs to be conceptualised as a critical theory to address the multiple sustainability crises and to protect animals, end their exploitation and facilitate their flourishing.

Transformative Action for Sustainable Outcomes, 2022

This chapter argues that nonhuman animal interests are often silenced in the discourse of sustainable development. This includes the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals that retain a limited agenda for global change, ignoring our posthuman reality. Using a posthuman affirmative ethical lens that recognises the interconnectedness of human-nonhuman wellbeing for more positive futures, our chapter explores whether marketplace collaborations between animal protection organisations (seemingly speaking on behalf of animal interests) and companies through accreditation schemes can be considered examples of posthuman affirmative ethics in practice.

Handbook of Inequality and the Environment, 2023

Nonhuman Animals are the most vulnerable to environmental inequality, if only measured by the sheer number of individuals impacted. Climate change has decimated all variety of free-living species. The World Wildlife Fund for Nature's Living Planet Index reports that, since 1970, the world's nonhuman populations have, on average, declined by about 70 percent (Almond et al., 2020). But free-living communities comprise only a fraction of Nonhuman Animals impacted by human activity. Many of the critical consequences of climate change can be credited to or have been aggravated by Nonhuman Animal agriculture (Shukla et al., 2019), and this industry is also responsible for dramatically increasing the numbers of chickens, cows, pigs, sheeps, camels, rabbits, horses, and other animals classified as "livestock" who meet with terrible bodily and psychological injustices in the global production of "meat," eggs, breastmilk, skins, oils, feathers, and hair. The anthropocentrism of humanity's predominant relationship to the environment is so extreme that this gratuitous violence against other animals (both domesticated and free-living) goes largely unnoticed in everyday society. Meanwhile, environmental justice, the very field established to champion public awareness and policy in the service of marginalized groups, has also sidelined the nonhuman experience. And it does so in the face of some of the most astonishing injustices and large-scale suffering. This chapter will outline the potential reasons for this exclusion, while also providing a general introduction to Nonhuman Animal rights theory that would be of practical use to the uninitiated social justice scholar or environmentalist. Theories of social justice revolve around issues of human rights, public health, or environmental sustainability, with the effect of excluding Nonhuman Animals as irrelevant or secondary players in the dialogue. Their historical emphasis on class and race inequalities likely accounts for this exclusion as well. Some environmental ethicists do account for the Nonhuman Animal experience, of course, but often in a paternalistic manner that abstracts them in the greater fabric of "nature." Otherwise, charismatic megafauna are commonly singled out for protection, given their superficial appeal to human aesthetics. The view that Nonhuman Animals are valuable merely as resources is also prevalent. Here, Nonhuman Animals are objectified as cog-like components in the service of thriving ecosystems, as Kheel (2007) documents in her historical analysis of environmental ethics. This perspective is certainly antiquated and is increasingly challenged in the contemporary environmental ethics literature, but outside of academic and activist discourses it remains a dominant theme. The commodification of Nonhuman Animals and their reduction to use-value for humans, even in wild spaces, is thought to reflect patriarchal and capitalistic ideological norms. In a capitalist society, vegan feminists argue, all persons, things, and social relations are subject to reification as potentially profitable commodities (Nibert, 2002). Furthermore, in many cultures (particularly that of the West), this perspective is bolstered by a persistent legacy of conservative religious ideology that naturalizes human primacy.