The marine conservation organization Sea Shepherd is most known for its radical direct action, e. g., against whale poaching. This thesis examines the campaign “Operation Dolphin Bycatch,” coordinated by the French branch of the NGO, through discourse analysis and interviews with Sea Shepherd France (SSF) members. Dolphins serve as the flagship species of the campaign. They allow SSF to criticize non-selective fishing methods that cause the accidental killing of dolphins in the Bay of Biscay. With expressions from war and religion, SSF portrays the French government and most fishermen as enemies of the dolphins’ wellbeing that pursue self-interested profit values. It is found that SSF positions itself as radical more in its worldview than its approaches. The ecological philosophy of biocentrism contradicts the anthropocentrism that dominates society. In this campaign, the NGO uses “outsider” tactics: It exerts pressure on French policy-makers with footage of dolphin bycatch and takes great care to maintain international legitimacy by staying within legal boundaries. / L’organisation de conservation du milieu marin Sea Shepherd est surtout connue pour ses méthodes d’action directe radicale, par exemple contre le braconnage des baleines. Ce mémoire de master examine la campagne « Opération Dolphin Bycatch », qui est coordonnée par la branche française de l’ONG, à travers une analyse multimodale du discours et des entretiens avec des bénévoles de Sea Shepherd France (SSF). Les dauphins sont l’espèce porte-drapeau de la campagne. Ils permettent ainsi à SSF de critiquer les méthodes de pêche non sélectives qui provoquent la mort accidentelle de dauphins dans le Golfe de Gascogne. Avec des expressions provenant des champs lexicaux de la guerre et de la religion, SSF dépeint le gouvernement français et la plupart des pêcheurs comme poursuivant des valeurs lucratives égoïstes à l’encontre du bien-être des dauphins. Il s’avère que SSF se positionne comme radicale dans sa vision du monde plus que dans ses approches. Sa philosophie biocentrée de l’environnement contredit l’anthropocentrisme qui domine la société. Dans cette campagne, l’ONG utilise des tactiques « extérieures », c’est-à-dire qu’elle exerce une pression sur les décideurs politiques français avec des images de prises accessoires de dauphins et prend soin de maintenir une légitimité internationale en restant dans un cadre légal. / Die Meeresschutzorganisation Sea Shepherd ist vor allem für ihre radikalen „Direct Action“-Methoden bekannt, beispielsweise gegen Wal-Wilderei. Diese Arbeit untersucht die Kampagne „Operation Dolphin Bycatch“, die vom französischen Zweig der NGO koordiniert wird, durch multimodale Diskursanalyse und Interviews mit Mitgliedern von Sea Shepherd Frankreich (SSF). Delfine dienen als Flaggschiff-Art der Kampagne. Sie ermöglichen es SSF, die nicht-selektiven Fischereimethoden zu kritisieren, die das versehentliche Töten von Delfinen im Golf von Biskaya verursachen. Mit Begriffen aus Krieg und Religion schreibt SSF der französischen Regierung und den meisten Fischerleuten eigennützige Profitinteressen zu und stellt sie als Feinde des Wohlergehens der Delfine dar. Es zeigt sich, dass SSF eher in ihrer Weltanschauung als in ihren Ansätzen eine radikale Position beansprucht. Ihre biozentrische Umwelt-Philosophie steht im Widerspruch zum Anthropozentrismus, der in der Gesellschaft vorherrscht. Bei dieser Kampagne bedient sich die NGO „Außenseiter“-Taktiken: Sie übt Druck auf französische Politiker*innen aus, indem sie Filmaufnahmen von Delfin-Beifang zeigt, und achtet durch das Einhalten gesetzlicher Vorgaben darauf, internationale Legitimität zu wahren.

Denna studie av alla Anna Greta Wides samlingar (även postuma) undersöker relationen mellan människa och natur i hennes dikter. Utifrån begreppen antropocentrism, ekocentrism och biocentrism undersöks dem och genom ett flertal olika teman - bland annat religionen, platsen, odödligheten/dödligheten samt besjälning och dehumanisering - presenteras flera olika resultat. Sammanfattningsvis påpekas komplexiteten i dikternas gestaltning av relationen mellan människan och den natur som omringar henne, och en förståelse angående den annalkande miljöproblematiken tilldelas poeten.

[pt] Este trabalho apresenta e discute a hipótese de que o jornalismo de referência, sempre destacado nas pesquisas pelo seu compromisso com a mediação social e ação pelos direitos democráticos, busca atrair a audiência para as pautas sobre os animais através das estratégias do infotenimento. Nesse contexto, esta tese faz um percurso teórico sobre a história das relações entre humanos e animais na filosofia, na literatura e no cinema; apresenta as principais formas de engajamento social e as principais manifestações legislativas da causa animal; percorre os textos clássicos do discurso biocêntrico; e analisa a relação do jornalismo com o entretenimento na rotina de seleção e produção das narrativas jornalísticas. Através da metodologia de análise de conteúdo, os resultados mostram que os discursos sobre os animais nos jornais de referência, selecionados como objetos de estudo, comprovam empiricamente o paradoxo do campo jornalístico entre o polo comercial e o ideológico. As matérias podem ser um impulso na audiência, mas também destacam a mudança de um sistema de pensamento do antropocentrismo para o biocentrismo. / [en] This work presents and discusses the hypothesis that reference journalism, always highlighted by research for its commitment to social mediation and action for democratic rights, seeks to attract the audience to animal stories through the infotainment strategies. In this context, this thesis makes a theoretical course on the history of the relationships between humans and animals in philosophy, literature and cinema; it presents the main forms of social engagement and the main legislative manifestations of the animal cause; it walks through the classic texts of biocentric discourse; and it analyzes the relation of journalism with entertainment in the routine of selecting and producing journalistic narratives. Through content analysis methodology, the results show that the discourses about animals in the reference newspapers selected as objects of study empirically prove the paradox of the journalistic field between the commercial and the ideological pole. The journalistic stories can be an audience boost, but they also highlight the shift from an anthropocentrism to a biocentrism system of thought.

Thesis (MPhil)--University of Stellenbosch, 2003. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: This research project has been purposed at shedding light and bringing clarity and practical resolution to the ethical dilemma brought about by seemingly incompatible principles and value positions associated with the two contentious issues: social development and nature conservation. In view of exposing the contentions between the two above-mentioned value positions, this project has pitted anthropocentrism against biocen trism / ecocen trism. However, as alluded to in this research, many people in developing countries, South Africa included, are victims of poverty and hunger which need redress. Unfortunately the alleviation of the same has been made possible through ruthless exploitation and maximum expansion of natural resources and in the process, the environment suffered much. However, with social development, the natural environment is often sacrificed and conversely with the protection and preservation of nature, man is then condemned to destitution. With the introduction and the case expose forming the introduction of this research project in Chapter 1, Chapter 2 is devoted to the research methodology used throughout this project. Also, given the problem statement, endeavours to search for answers to the central questions are outlined. An analysis of the case study is also made in this chapter. Chapter 3 deals with the weighing of the classical dilemmas namely: anthropocentrism versus biocentrism / ecocentrism and this further entails the notion of justice versus conservation pertaining the case in point. These classical dilemmas are put into critical perspective in Chapter 4 wherein monistic value approaches are exposed in terms of their failures. Precisely, the either-or choices following from pure theoretical principles are put into question with reference to the case under discussion. An alternative, namely the pragmatic approach, which maintains a multiplicity of values, is hereby brought into play. Chapter 5 entails a critical appraisal of the decision to be taken by the Makhado Municipality Council with regard to the development of the shopping complex or the protection of the indigenous tree sanctuary. In conclusion, recommendations and suggestions are stated within the context of the case in point. However, it is imperative to note that these recommendations and suggestions should be read in conjunction with one another, and not in isolation from one another. Furthermore, the same should not in anyway be indiscriminately used as a universal standard in any similar or related case. Further research on this ethical debate is encouraged. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Die doel van hierdie navorsingsprojek is om helderheid en 'n praktiese oplossing te kry met betrekking tot die etiese dilemma wat voortspruit uit die oeriskynlik onversoenbare beginsels en waardeposisies wat geassosieer word met twee omstrede kwessies, naamlik sosiale ontwikkeling en natuurbewaring. Met die oog daarop om die kwelpunte rondom bogenoemde twee waardeposisies aan die lig te bring, stel hierdie projek antroposentrisme teenoor biosentrisme / ekosentrisme. Baie mense in ontwikkelende lande, insluitend Suid-Afrika, IS slagoffers van armoede en hongersnood, soos aangedui word in die loop van hierdie navorsing. Hierdie situasie noodsaak regs telling. Pogings om verligting te bring in hierdie verband, lei egter tot die genadelose eksploitasie en maksimum ontwikkeling van natuurlike hulpbronne. In hierdie proses word die omgewing ernstig beskadig. Die ongelukkige toedrag van sake is dus dat sosiale ontwikkeling dikwels geskied ten koste van die omgewing, terwyl die beskerming en bewaring van die omgewing op sy beurt dikwels die mens behoeftig laat. Hoofstuk 1 van hierdie navorsingsprojek bevat 'n inleiding en beskrywing van die geval onder bespreking, terwyl Hoofstuk 2 gewy word aan die navorsingsmetodologie wat in hierdie projek gebruik word. Dit bevat ook 'n skets van die pogings om antwoorde te soek op die sentrale vrae van die probleemstelling, en 'n analise van die gevallestudie. In Hoofstuk 3 word die klassieke dilemmas wat verband hou met die betrokke probleem opgeweeg, naamlik antroposentrisme teenoor biosentrismej ekosentrisme, en die idee van geregtigheid teenoor die idee van bewaring. Bogenoemde klassieke dilemmas word in 'n kritiese lig beskou in Hoofstuk 4 deurdat die tekortkominge van monistiese waardebenaderings uitgewys word. Die 6f-6f keuses wat volg uit suiwer teoretiese beginsels word bevraagteken met verwysing na die geval onder bespreking. 'n Pleidooi word uiteindelik gelewer vir 'n alternatiewe pragmatiese benadering wat eerder 'n veelheid van waardes betrek. Hoofstuk 5 bevat 'n kritiese beoordeling van die keuse wat die Makhado Munisipaliteitsraad moet maak tussen die ontwikkeling van 'n winkelkompleks of die beskerming van 'n inheemse boomreservaat. Ter afsluiting word aanbevelings en voorstelle gemaak in verband met die kwessie onder bespreking. Dit is egter belangrik om daarop te let dat hierdie aanbevelings en voorstelle nie apart van mekaar beskou moet word nie, maar eerder saam gelees moet word. Dit is verder ook belangrik dat die aanbevelings en voorstelle wat met betrekking tot hierdie geval gemaak word nie sonder meer gebruik moet word as 'n universele standaard vir soortgelyke of verwante gevalle nie. Verdere navorsing oor hierdie etiese debat word aangemoedig.

A lei atual foi forjada sobre a premissa de que a humanidade está no centro do mundo e de que o homem é o único e legitimado senhor de todos os seres vivos. Desde que Darwin revelou para o mundo uma então chocante realidade sim, nós viemos de um símio ancestral os princípios filosóficos do antropocentrismo começaram a ruir. E os animais, que nós sempre pensamos como objetivos de uso e consumo humano, como sofás, mesas e cadeiras? E os seres que nós descobrimos serem tão relacionados a nós que os chamamos de primos ou humanlike? Eles ainda são bens móveis nas palavras fora de moda do direito posto? Pois agora que uma nova realidade está implodindo os antigos tabus de irracionalidade e instinto pavloviano, muitos juristas e filósofos passaram a defender a existência de direitos fundamentais (como à vida, à liberdade, e à integridade física) a vários animais, baseados na sua igualdade substancial aos seres humanos. Para os que sustentam tais ideias, os animais, como a maioria de nós, têm interesses considerados relevantes, o que significa que eles podem pensar racionalmente, evitando a dor e o sofrimento, e procurando o bem-estar, mas somente o pequeno grupo chamado de grandes primatas (no qual se incluem o próprio homem e, além dele, os outros hominoides e antropoides, isto é, os chimpanzés, gorilas, orangotangos e bonobos) conhecem os rudimentos (blocos construtores) da moralidade. Aos grandes primatas podem ser reconhecidos direitos subjetivos? A resposta pode ser encontrada tanto no jusnaturalismo (na teoria do direito natural), que concebe direitos inatos, partilhados, segundo Justiniano, entre todas as criaturas vivas, quanto na teoria do interesse de Ihering, em oposição à teoria da vontade de Windscheid. Conjuntamente, eles podem explicar um novo conceito de personalidade jurídica mínima para os grandes primatas. / Modern Law is founded over the premise that mankind is in the center of the world; that man is the sole master and ruler of all living beings. Since Darwin brought into the eyes of humanity a brand new shocking reality yes, we came from the apish ancestor philosophy principles of anthropocentrism have collapsed. What about those animals we always thought as mere objects like sofas, tables or chairs? What about those beings we have now discovered so close related to us that we are used to call them as kin or humanlike creatures? Are they still goods by the old-fashioned words of written law? For a new reality is overcoming ancient taboos of irrationality and pavlovian instincts, there are now many jurists and philosophers who defend basic rights (such as life, liberty and bodily integrity) to lots of animals, based on their substantial equality to humans. For those who claim in their favor, animals, like most of us, have interests considered relevant, which means that they can think rationally, avoiding pain and suffering, and seeking for wellness of living, but only the small group called the great apes (in which we include the man himself as also the other hominoids or anthropoids: chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and bonobos) know the building blocks of morality. Are they so entitled to have rights? The answer lies in both jusnaturalism (theory of natural rights), which conceives inherent rights of living, commonly shared, according to Justinian, by all living creatures, and in Ihering theory of interest opposed to Windscheids of will. Combined together they can provide a new concept of minimum notion of legal personhood for the great apes.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:20:32Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Andre Luis Cais.pdf: 1116607 bytes, checksum: 7bbfc501bfa8eb94855f57658a33bae3 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2011-10-24 / This proposal aims to reflect on the recent discussion presented by academic and scientific community about the use of animals in scientific experimentation and propose improvement of Brazilian legislation on animal welfare. It is necessary a brief historical background on the origin and evolution of the concept of anthropocentrism to current biocentrism, closely related to the discussion of Nature and animal rights. The discussion dealt with some thoughts about the justification for the use of animals in scientific experiments and the need for an effective and efficient Board of Ethics, able to manage animal experiments or avoid their repetition and multiplication without substantial reason or scientific basis that may benefit man rather than the conservation of nature. In this context, Nature, especially animals, deserve a proper reflection and a philosophical inquiry: are animals subjects of rights or do they deserve to be respected only under a humanist view in favor to the human use and benefit? / A presente proposta tem por objetivo refletir sobre a recente discussão apresentada pela comunidade acadêmica e científica acerca do uso de animais na experimentação científica, bem como propor o aperfeiçoamento da legislação brasileira sobre o bem-estar animal. Faz-se necessário um breve contexto histórico sobre a origem e a evolução do conceito de antropocentrismo para a corrente do biocentrismo, intimamente relacionada com a discussão sobre a natureza e os direitos dos animais. A discussão abordada faz uma reflexão sobre a justificativa para a utilização de animais em experimentos científicos e a necessidade de um Conselho de Ética efetivo e eficaz, capaz de gerenciar experimentações em animais ou impedir a sua repetição e multiplicação, sem razões substanciais ou embasamento científico que beneficie o homem em detrimento da conservação da natureza. Nesse quadro, a natureza, em especial os animais, merecem uma reflexão adequada e um questionamento filosófico: os animais são sujeitos de direitos ou merecem ser respeitados apenas por uma visão humanista em prol do uso e do benefício humano?

<p>Syftet med studien av denna New Age grupp var att behandla begreppet helhet. Den allmänna frågeställningen var hur detta helhetsbegrepp skapades. I en mer avgränsad frågeställning blev utgångspunkten erfarenhet, kunskap och insikt och på vilket sätt detta skapade en koppling mellan den immateriella och materiella världen. I det undersökta materialet ingick litterära källor för bakgrund och referens, men studien grundar sig på intervjumaterial som dock inte presenteras i sin helhet.</p><p>Materialet har delats upp i tre kategorier som kan spegla synen på den immateriella och den materiella delen av respektive uppfattning, till detta har även ett etiskt perspektiv infogats, detta för att möjliggöra studiet av de faktorer som påverkar sambandet mellan den immateriella och materiella världen.</p><p>Resultatet av studien visar att reinkarnationsidén var en bärande faktor, där en orientering kring begreppen erfarenhet, kunskap och insikt hade en avgörande betydelse för reinkarnationstanken, vilket även skapade en sammanlänkning av den materiella och immateriella världen. Dessa begrepp var centrala element i skapandet av den helhetssyn man har på tillvaron.</p>

Syftet med studien av denna New Age grupp var att behandla begreppet helhet. Den allmänna frågeställningen var hur detta helhetsbegrepp skapades. I en mer avgränsad frågeställning blev utgångspunkten erfarenhet, kunskap och insikt och på vilket sätt detta skapade en koppling mellan den immateriella och materiella världen. I det undersökta materialet ingick litterära källor för bakgrund och referens, men studien grundar sig på intervjumaterial som dock inte presenteras i sin helhet. Materialet har delats upp i tre kategorier som kan spegla synen på den immateriella och den materiella delen av respektive uppfattning, till detta har även ett etiskt perspektiv infogats, detta för att möjliggöra studiet av de faktorer som påverkar sambandet mellan den immateriella och materiella världen. Resultatet av studien visar att reinkarnationsidén var en bärande faktor, där en orientering kring begreppen erfarenhet, kunskap och insikt hade en avgörande betydelse för reinkarnationstanken, vilket även skapade en sammanlänkning av den materiella och immateriella världen. Dessa begrepp var centrala element i skapandet av den helhetssyn man har på tillvaron.

A lei atual foi forjada sobre a premissa de que a humanidade está no centro do mundo e de que o homem é o único e legitimado senhor de todos os seres vivos. Desde que Darwin revelou para o mundo uma então chocante realidade sim, nós viemos de um símio ancestral os princípios filosóficos do antropocentrismo começaram a ruir. E os animais, que nós sempre pensamos como objetivos de uso e consumo humano, como sofás, mesas e cadeiras? E os seres que nós descobrimos serem tão relacionados a nós que os chamamos de primos ou humanlike? Eles ainda são bens móveis nas palavras fora de moda do direito posto? Pois agora que uma nova realidade está implodindo os antigos tabus de irracionalidade e instinto pavloviano, muitos juristas e filósofos passaram a defender a existência de direitos fundamentais (como à vida, à liberdade, e à integridade física) a vários animais, baseados na sua igualdade substancial aos seres humanos. Para os que sustentam tais ideias, os animais, como a maioria de nós, têm interesses considerados relevantes, o que significa que eles podem pensar racionalmente, evitando a dor e o sofrimento, e procurando o bem-estar, mas somente o pequeno grupo chamado de grandes primatas (no qual se incluem o próprio homem e, além dele, os outros hominoides e antropoides, isto é, os chimpanzés, gorilas, orangotangos e bonobos) conhecem os rudimentos (blocos construtores) da moralidade. Aos grandes primatas podem ser reconhecidos direitos subjetivos? A resposta pode ser encontrada tanto no jusnaturalismo (na teoria do direito natural), que concebe direitos inatos, partilhados, segundo Justiniano, entre todas as criaturas vivas, quanto na teoria do interesse de Ihering, em oposição à teoria da vontade de Windscheid. Conjuntamente, eles podem explicar um novo conceito de personalidade jurídica mínima para os grandes primatas. / Modern Law is founded over the premise that mankind is in the center of the world; that man is the sole master and ruler of all living beings. Since Darwin brought into the eyes of humanity a brand new shocking reality yes, we came from the apish ancestor philosophy principles of anthropocentrism have collapsed. What about those animals we always thought as mere objects like sofas, tables or chairs? What about those beings we have now discovered so close related to us that we are used to call them as kin or humanlike creatures? Are they still goods by the old-fashioned words of written law? For a new reality is overcoming ancient taboos of irrationality and pavlovian instincts, there are now many jurists and philosophers who defend basic rights (such as life, liberty and bodily integrity) to lots of animals, based on their substantial equality to humans. For those who claim in their favor, animals, like most of us, have interests considered relevant, which means that they can think rationally, avoiding pain and suffering, and seeking for wellness of living, but only the small group called the great apes (in which we include the man himself as also the other hominoids or anthropoids: chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and bonobos) know the building blocks of morality. Are they so entitled to have rights? The answer lies in both jusnaturalism (theory of natural rights), which conceives inherent rights of living, commonly shared, according to Justinian, by all living creatures, and in Ihering theory of interest opposed to Windscheids of will. Combined together they can provide a new concept of minimum notion of legal personhood for the great apes.

No description available.