61. Animal Ethics: October 2004
concerned. That means many animals will be shot in non-vital parts of their bodies. Some of the wounded animals will no doubt escape into the woods where they will die slow lingering deaths. Some of the other wounded animals, those too severely
http://animalethics.blogspot.com/2004_10_01_archive.html - 144.4kb
62. Animal Ethics: August 2005
the training of performing animals, of the trapping of animals for fur, of the making of foie gras, if enforced by law would cause only slight changes in what is at its best mainly caprice, the fashions of amusement or clothing or food.
http://animalethics.blogspot.com/2005_08_01_archive.html - 129.2kb
63. Animal Ethics: October 2007
into other branches of philosophy. Now I’m interested in epistemology, philosophy of religion, metaphysics, and philosophy of language. The metaphor that I chose to describe this process is a zoom lens. Originally, I said, I was
http://animalethics.blogspot.com/2007_10_01_archive.html - 152.2kb
64. Animal Ethics: July 2005
with him about the nature of philosophy. Singer thinks the aim of philosophy is to change the world. I think the aim of philosophy is to understand the world—specifically, its logical structure. To the extent that Singer advocates change,
http://animalethics.blogspot.com/2005_07_01_archive.html - 123.0kb
65. Animal Ethics: Are Animals Sentient?
It is not the case that [(a) animals are sentient, (b) animals are innocent, and (c) animals lack immortal souls] (from 3 and 4, modus tollens).Therefore,6. Either (a) animals are not sentient, (b) animals are not innocent, or (c) animals have
http://animalethics.blogspot.com/2008/04/st-augustine-of-hippo-354-430-on-animal.html - 87.3kb
66. Animal Ethics: April 2007
on altars themselves. The animals took the place of humans. We humans did not have to die for our sins—innocent, pure animals took our place. Through the course of history, countless animals died to save human souls. Before the time of
http://animalethics.blogspot.com/2007_04_01_archive.html - 154.6kb
67. Animal Ethics: May 2009
human beings and other animals, there are no moral differences that justify human beings’ killing and eating animals but not killing and eating one another. Moreover, since it is morally wrong to kill and eat human beings, it is morally
http://animalethics.blogspot.com/2009_05_01_archive.html - 113.4kb
68. Animal Ethics: Confusions and Fallacies About Animals, Part 15
the Moral Status of Nonhuman Animals
19 July 2004
Confusions and Fallacies About Animals, Part 15
I’m always stunned to hear intelligent people defend meat-eating
http://animalethics.blogspot.com/2004/07/confusions-and-fallacies-about-animals_19.html - 90.5kb
69. Animal Ethics: Issues to Discuss
a moral question, since no animals need be killed in the process of acquiring them?• Is there a morally relevant difference between eating wild animals and eating domesticated animals? After all, wild animals are not confined. If they're
http://animalethics.blogspot.com/2003/11/issues-to-discuss.html - 93.5kb
70. Animal Ethics: Confusions and Fallacies About Animals, Part 8
charge that all companion animals are slaves, perhaps the person making it has in mind other animals besides dogs and cats. Wild animals such as lizards, snakes, monkeys, rodents (hamsters, gerbils, guinea pigs), and birds did not evolve with
http://animalethics.blogspot.com/2004/06/confusions-and-fallacies-about-animals.html - 91.4kb
Information Centre of