No description available.

Grant Morrison’s Animal Man could be argued to worry the man/animal boundary. Using closereadings of the comics against the backdrop of Jacques Derrida’s and Martin Heidegger’stheories on the boundary between man and animal, I explore the following ideas which seemcommon in the discourses on that which separates humans from animals: intelligence vs. instinct,the human hand vs. the animal’s paw, humanity’s richness-in-world vs. animal’s poorness-inworld,and language.In Animal Man, Morrison gives voice to animal characters by giving them personalities,which seems a romanticizing of the real state of affairs. Alongside all the depicted animals, thereare many hybrid characters, which take on the characteristics of both humans and animals. Theuse of hybrid characters such as the Coyote and Animal Man problematize the boundary betweenman and animal. This study of Animal Man, most importantly, shows that the differences as wellas similarities between humans and animals are based on ideologically produced discourses, andthis includes Morrison’s own philosophy on animal rights and his activism. I argue that Morrisonboth worries the boundary between humans and animals, and keeps it operative in order to makethe reader perceive animals in more anthropocentric terms.

I've chosen Animals as a tool used by mankind as a topic for my thesis. The reason to choose this topic is my closeness to it because of my education in fields of ecology and ethics. I presume, that it would be interesting to connect gained knowledge from ecology and my current study of bioethics. The aim of my thesis is to find out, discover, explain and prove, whether and to what measure is it justified to use animals in favor of a human. I would like to try to describe most important aspects of this topic in my thesis. I'd try to answer to this aimed goal through collected information from worldwide and local authors. My thesis will be structured in three main parts. First part will be aimed on animal rights, in a second part, there will be desribed in which ways we use animals and in a third part there are stated ethical and theological aspects of this problem.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:24:19Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Sandro Cavalcanti Rollo.pdf: 1748974 bytes, checksum: 1aae6dc120b3930557bc1edfe1d86d22 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-03-07 / In the last ten years some writs of habeas corpus have been filed, in Brazil and in other countries, on behalf of great primates. It is a matter of constitutional order and one more instrument utilized for activists for the recognition of the Animal s Rights. This slope, even if generates many controversies, is coming neatly bigger in the past few years, as we can verify throughout the doctrinal and jurisprudential production. The sentience always have been the central element inside the debates evolving the rela-tionship between humans and other animals. Scientific progress that have finding the impressive genetic closeness among us and the great primates, boosted the requests of habeas corpus on behalf of the latter. The grant of the order and, consequently, the admission of rights to the animals generates countless questionings. If the humankind proceeds in the path of the emancipatory trajectory and after receiving all human be-ings in their moral community, could receive , what seems to be the last frontier, the animals, many questionings should be subject of analysis, that already derives from the own grant of the writ to the anthropoids. So, what animals, which rights, what cri-teria to concede them, what judicial instruments must be used to protect them, what is the consequence for humans of the acknowledgment of the Animals Rights and what criteria should be utilized in a conflict of interests between human animals and nonhu-man animals, are some of the largely complex questionings that will be subject of re-flection in the present work / Nos últimos 10 anos vem sendo impetrados, no Brasil e em outros países, habeas corpus em favor de grandes primatas. Trata-se a ação constitucional de mais um ins-trumento utilizado por ativistas para o reconhecimento dos Direitos Animais. Esta ver-tente, ainda que geradora de polêmicas, vem nitidamente crescendo ao longo dos últimos anos, como se verifica através da produção doutrinaria, legislativa e jurispru-dencial. A senciência sempre foi elemento central dentro dos debates envolvendo a relação humanos e demais animais. Os avanços científicos que constataram a im-pressionante proximidade genética entre os nós e os grandes primatas impulsionaram as demandas de habeas corpus em favor deles. A concessão da ordem e a conse-quente admissão de direitos aos animais geram inúmeros questionamentos. Caso a humanidade continue na sua trajetória emancipatória e, depois de acolher todos os seres humanos em sua comunidade moral, acolha, o que parece ser a última fronteira, os animais, várias questões deverão ser objeto de análise, que já derivam da própria concessão do writ aos antropoides. Assim, quais animais, quais direitos, qual critério para concedê-los, quais instrumentos jurídicos para protegê-los, qual a consequência para os humanos do reconhecimento dos Direitos Animais e qual critério a ser utilizado em conflito de interesses entre animais humanos e animais não humanos, são algu-mas das altamente complexas questões que serão objeto de reflexão no presente trabalho

<p>Growing up as a child, we had a Dog. To us, it was like a means to an end. That is, hunting other animals for food and for protection, with no special care and treatment given to this animal. Butas days passed by I began to witness a wind of change against such actions. I was made to understand that we were committing two crimes-: using the Dog as a means to an end (for hunting and for eating animals). Today almost every newspaper has something to say about the treatment of animals by humans, especially in their use as experimentation subjects. This has led to the wide spread arguments about “Animal right” and “Animal equality” Advocates of the above arguments hold that just like humans, animals too have rights and are in many ways like humans. There also exist animal right groups. Organisations and countries now have laws regulating animal used in the laboratory. If I may be permitted, I will want to say that the world is in a state of dilemma regarding animal experimentation. While some argue against it, based on the claim that these animals have no right and are not equal to humans, others argue in favour of it on claims that animals have moral rights, feel pain and suffer just like humans and should not be subjected to painful experiments. I then begin to wander how research on animals to improve human health should not be undertaken just because it is claimed that these animals have rights and are in many ways equal to humans. It is the contention of this paper to find out the extent to which animal rights and animal equality justifies the fight against animal experimentation.</p>

Growing up as a child, we had a Dog. To us, it was like a means to an end. That is, hunting other animals for food and for protection, with no special care and treatment given to this animal. Butas days passed by I began to witness a wind of change against such actions. I was made to understand that we were committing two crimes-: using the Dog as a means to an end (for hunting and for eating animals). Today almost every newspaper has something to say about the treatment of animals by humans, especially in their use as experimentation subjects. This has led to the wide spread arguments about “Animal right” and “Animal equality” Advocates of the above arguments hold that just like humans, animals too have rights and are in many ways like humans. There also exist animal right groups. Organisations and countries now have laws regulating animal used in the laboratory. If I may be permitted, I will want to say that the world is in a state of dilemma regarding animal experimentation. While some argue against it, based on the claim that these animals have no right and are not equal to humans, others argue in favour of it on claims that animals have moral rights, feel pain and suffer just like humans and should not be subjected to painful experiments. I then begin to wander how research on animals to improve human health should not be undertaken just because it is claimed that these animals have rights and are in many ways equal to humans. It is the contention of this paper to find out the extent to which animal rights and animal equality justifies the fight against animal experimentation.

Animal welfare is a topic subjected to great controversy, mostly within moral philosophy. The moral issue of human behaviour is often dealt with, alongside whether nonhuman animals are eligible certain rights. In our world, how humans behave towards nonhuman animals have fallen into something of political oblivion, which is the departure-point for this research. The essay’s discourse surrounds nonhuman animals’ political and moral status in Sweden, with the aim of drawing conclusions regarding whether they can be said to possess it. This is done through an analysis of ideas, using dimensions as tools, problematizing the Swedish parliamentary parties' views on animal welfare. A better understanding for nonhuman animals’ situation in Sweden has been provided, showing that there is no animal rights mentality tangible, while speciesist and utilitarian attitudes towards nonhuman animals dominate. The analysis show that nonhuman animals in Sweden possess moral status, as the parties agree that nonhuman animals should be spared from unnecessary suffering, and their welfare seems to count in its own right. However, human interests tend to take precedence in most cases, and in the end, nonhuman animals cannot be considered to possess any political status, despite their unmistakable presence in our society.

This thesis is offered as a contribution to studies of social and cultural change in the Icelandic fisheries and fishing communities. Such changes may be seen as a result of the interplay of internal dynamics with both national and global forces and processes, not least with regard to the impacts of fisheries governance. These changes occur also in an international context of new environmental ideologies and perceptions of marine mammals, with consequences for social dynamics of local resource-use. Here it is argued that the conflicts over the harvesting or conservation of cetaceans can productively be understood from a cultural perspective. The thesis discusses the elevation of whales as symbols of particular value, and the metaphorical and cognitive aspects of, in particular, anthropomorphism, the projection of human motives and values onto animal behaviour, as a significant and effective part of conservation rhetoric and ideology. Specifically, the thesis deals with issues concerning whaling and whale watching along with issues and debates concerning these alternative forms of exploiting marine mammals. It also discusses central questions regarding fisheries governance and rights to fishing with reference to social and economic viability in Icelandic fishing communities. The unifying themes of this thesis are: how marine-mammal issues and controversies and social impacts of fisheries governance form part of globalization processes; how environmental and economic paradigms influence change, particularly in terms of marine-mammal conservation campaigns and market liberalist resource policy; and how these external ideological forces call for responses at local and national levels. The adaptive actions of the human agents and communities involved are described as creative, cumulative and complex. The thesis also highlights the central transformative role of the new regime of private property rights introduced into Icelandic fisheries governance in the 1980s.

Submitted by Edileide Reis (leyde-landy@hotmail.com) on 2013-04-17T18:01:57Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Tagore.pdf: 1030320 bytes, checksum: cba490bd4eff28bc37e2b5a635ec0ace (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Rodrigo Meirelles(rodrigomei@ufba.br) on 2013-05-09T17:36:11Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 Tagore.pdf: 1030320 bytes, checksum: cba490bd4eff28bc37e2b5a635ec0ace (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2013-05-09T17:36:12Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Tagore.pdf: 1030320 bytes, checksum: cba490bd4eff28bc37e2b5a635ec0ace (MD5) Previous issue date: 2009 / Esta dissertação trata da possibilidade de animais não-humanos irem a juízo reivindicar seus direitos perante os Tribunais. A idéia de animais estarem em juízo reivindicando seus direitos não é nova. Ao contrário data de períodos distantes. Porém, estes casos desencadeavam uma sensação de estranheza paa os operadores do direito que não sabiam lidar com esse tipo lide. O objetivo desta dissertação é de ser o fundamento teórico para uma mudança de concepção jurídica por parte destes operadores. Esta dissertação é a tentativa de reletir sobre conceitos jurídicos alicerçados, além de demonstrar de forma cuidadosa e consistente como os animais devem ter seus interesses reconhecidos e garantidos pelo ordenamento jurídico. Temas como sujeito de direito, personalidade jurídica e capacidade jurídica serão debatidos e esmiuçados sempre sob o prisma da teoria dos direitos dos animais. / Salvador

Submitted by Jordan (jordanbiblio@gmail.com) on 2016-10-11T16:01:44Z No. of bitstreams: 1 DISS_2015_Eveline dos Santos Teixeira Baptistella.pdf: 3463250 bytes, checksum: ba0727f6b085ef96eea4d1c1b7a46ad6 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Jordan (jordanbiblio@gmail.com) on 2016-10-11T16:03:10Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 DISS_2015_Eveline dos Santos Teixeira Baptistella.pdf: 3463250 bytes, checksum: ba0727f6b085ef96eea4d1c1b7a46ad6 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2016-10-11T16:03:10Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 DISS_2015_Eveline dos Santos Teixeira Baptistella.pdf: 3463250 bytes, checksum: ba0727f6b085ef96eea4d1c1b7a46ad6 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015-11-10 / O relacionamento entre animais humanos e não-humanos é tão antigo quanto se pode rastrear pelos registros históricos, mas este é um envolvimento que vai se transformando conforme a própria sociedade se modifica. Do papel de presa na préhistória ao de “pai” de pets nos dias atuais, o ser humano se envolve e convive com os bichos de diversas maneiras e em instâncias variadas. A partir da inserção dos animais não-humanos nas esferas ética, moral e afetiva humanas no panorama derivado da crise ecológica da segunda metade do século XX, o objetivo desta pesquisa é analisar as relações entre pessoas e animais na sociedade contemporânea. Para tal, são enfocados dois aspectos. De um lado, os paradigmas científicos e suas variáveis na construção/destruição de fronteiras entre espécies são estudadas a partir da pesquisa bibliográfica e do relato de caso. De outro, os laços/barreiras desenvolvidos e vividos no cotidiano com base em entrevistas e etnografia realizadas da cidade de Cuiabá, capital de Mato Grosso. / Human and non-humans animals’ relationship is far too old, as remarked in the historical records, but this engagement transforms itself as society changes. From prehistory prey’s role to actual dad’s pet, human beings relate to and live with animals on different ways and moments. From the inclusion of non-human animals in human ethical, moral and affective spheres, due a panorama derived from ecological crisis in the second half of the twentieth century, this research aims at analyzing human and animals’ relationship in contemporary society. To do so, it focuses on two mainly aspects: on one hand, a bibliographical research and a case report investigates the scientific paradigms and their variables in the construction / destruction of boundaries between species; on another hand, the bonds/barriers daily created and experienced, based on interviews and ethnography, held in the Cuiaba city, capital of Mato Grosso.