Two Forms of Abolitionism and the Political Rights of Animals: A Case Study.

Political theorists advocating the abolition of instrumental uses of groups of animals are divided with respect to how they evaluate welfare reforms. Radical abolitionists maintain that welfare reforms are only dubiously described as moral improvements while pragmatic abolitionists maintain that wel...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Journal of Animal Ethics Vol. 8; no. 1; pp. 26 - 39
Autor principal: Stepanenko, Walter Scott
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: University of Illinois Press Spring2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=129307008&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: hlh
    uiTerm: 129307008
    longDbName: Humanities International Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        21565414
        BFVH
      jtl: Journal of Animal Ethics
      issn: 21565414
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Spring2018
      vid: 8
      iid: 1
      pid: 416
      pub: University of Illinois Press
    artinfo:
      ui:
        129307008
        10.5406/janimalethics.8.1.0026
      ppf: 26
      ppct: 13
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: P
              size: 624KB
      tig:
        atl: Two Forms of Abolitionism and the Political Rights of Animals: A Case Study.
      aug:
        au: Stepanenko, Walter Scott
        affil: University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio
      su:
        Animal welfare
        Animal rights
        Antislavery movements
      sug:
        subj:
          Animal welfare
          Animal rights
          Antislavery movements
      keyword:
        abolitionism
        animals
        food justice
        political rights
        pragmatism
        welfare
      ab: Political theorists advocating the abolition of instrumental uses of groups of animals are divided with respect to how they evaluate welfare reforms. Radical abolitionists maintain that welfare reforms are only dubiously described as moral improvements while pragmatic abolitionists maintain that welfare reforms are moral improvements, even if the conditions they permit are unjust. This article examines Wyckoff's interest model against the case of a Cincinnati coalition's efforts to reform the local food chain. This article argues that the coalition's program of choice is a welfare reform and that the interest model must evaluate the program as a moral improvement. This article concludes that if the interest model is the most appropriate political theory of animal rights, pragmatic abolitionism is philosophically more appropriate than radical abolitionism.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: Y
      custom: Copyright of Journal of Animal Ethics is the property of University of Illinois Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
      item: Journal of Animal Ethics
      holder: University of Illinois Press
      dt:
        @attributes:
          year: 2018
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N