Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Animal Rights”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Animal rights, animal minds, and human mindreading.

Do non-human animals have rights? The answer to this question depends on whether animals have morally relevant mental properties. Mindreading is the human activity of ascribing mental states to other organisms. Current knowledge about the evolution and cognitive structure of mindreading indicates that human ascriptions of mental states to non-human animals are very inaccurate. The accuracy of human mindreading can be improved with the help of scientific studies of animal minds. However, the scientific studies do not by themselves solve the problem of how to map psychological similarities (and differences) between humans and animals onto a distinction between morally relevant and morally irrelevant mental properties. The current limitations of human mindreading-whether scientifically aided or not-have practical consequences for the rational justification of claims about which rights (if any) non-human animals should be accorded.

Adult↗
PubMed1991

Animal rights and animal experimentation. Implications for physicians.

Practicing physicians are just becoming aware of the animal rights movement, which during the 1980s spawned numerous acts of violence against research facilities throughout the United States. The animal rightists are challenging physicians to show moral justification for the human exploitation of nature and the world of subhuman species. They have aroused public interest in animal welfare, sparked protective legislation for experimental animals, and indirectly encouraged the creation of committees to oversee the conduct of animal experimentation and the conditions of animal confinement. This controversy has necessitated a closer look at the questions of animal experimentation and animal rights against the backdrop of human experimentation and human rights. Physicians and specialists in animal care seek to alleviate suffering and anxiety, and, as moderates, they may be able to bring both sides of the animal rights controversy together in a spirit of mutual tolerance and in the common cause of promoting both human and animal welfare.

Animal Care Committees↗
PubMed1992

Rights of animals, perceptions of science, and political activism: profile of American animal rights activities.

This article reports original research examining characteristics of the active followers of the American animal rights movement. Typical respondents were Caucasian, highly educated urban professional women approximately thirty years old with a median income of $33,000 (1989). Most activists think of themselves as Democrats or as Independents, and have moderate to liberal political views. They were often suspicious of science and made no distinction between basic and applied science, or public versus private animal-based research. The research suggests that animal rights activism is part of a symbolic manifestation of egalitarian social and political views concerning scientific and technological change.

Animal Rights↗
PubMed1988

Animal welfare and animal rights.

Animal liberationists tend to divide into two mutually antagonistic camps: animal welfarists, who share a utilitarian moral outlook, and animal rightists, who presuppose a structure of basic rights. However, the gap between these groups tends to be exaggerated by their allegiance to oversimplified versions of their favored moral frameworks. For their part, animal rightists should acknowledge that rights, however basic, are also defeasible by appeals to consequences. Contrariwise, animal welfarists should recognize that rights, however derivative, are capable of constraining appeals to consequences. If both sides move to more defensible theoretical positions, their remaining differences on that level may be compatible with a broad area of convergence on practical issues.

Animal Care Committees↗
PubMed1996

Animal rights v animal research: a modest proposal.

The practical problem of assuaging the opponents of animal research may be solved without formally addressing (or resolving) the underlying ethical questions of the debate. Specifically, a peaceful boycott of the "fruits" of animal research may lead to a wider cessation of such research, than, say, vocal or even violent protest. To assist those who might wish to participate in such a boycott- and, moreover, to critically inform them of the implications of their actions-1 offer a modest proposal: the use of an "animal research advance directive", a form which enumerates precisely which "fruits of research" are declined.

Advance Directives↗
PubMed1985

[Animal rights and animal experimentation: problems and possible solutions].

In order to discuss the justified and humane demands for more animal protection in science we need first to achieve conceptual clarity. A simple separation of highly developed animals from less developed ones is hardly possible. Although we have no reliable way of assessing pain and suffering in animals we still have the responsibility for protecting them. However, scientists will always require animal experimentation in order to further the understanding of ourselves and to improve health. These experiments should follow strict guidelines. Concrete measures for animal protection must be adapted to each case and the consequences carefully thought out.

Animals↗