Thesis (B.A.)--Haverford College, Dept. of Philosophy, 2003. / Includes bibliographical references.

Med en diskursanalytisk ansats och utifrån ett kritiskt djurrättsligt perspektiv undersöks böckerna Rävjakten, Gittan och fårskallarna, Kurt och Kio vill ha djur och Händiga Hanna på bondgården. Vårt syfte är att undersöka vilka relationer mellan människor och djur som framträder i dessa böcker. Resultatet visar att relationen mellan människa och djur präglas av en speciesistisk diskurs där människan ses som överordnad. Vidare följer en diskussion om resultatets betydelse i en pedagogisk verksamhet och möjligheter till förändring.

Det blir alltmer vanligt med vegetarisk och vegansk kost i Sverige. Många väljer bort kött- och mejeriprodukter på grund av miljöaspekter men även för att främja djurens rättigheter. Mänskliga rättigheter är ett ämne som diskuteras bland annat i politiken, i skolan och på universiteten. Relationen mellan djurens rättigheter och mänskliga rättigheter diskuteras dock inte i lika hög grad, och hur vi ser den relationen varierarmellan olika personer. Jag tror att i princip ingen anser att andra arter än vi människor är moraliskt obetydliga men de allra flesta anser nog att vi människor är, i moralens ögon, viktigare. Hur relationen mellan människors och djurens rättigheterser ut har nog få funderat över i ingående detalj och med denna uppsats hoppas jag att vi kan få en tydligare bild av detta. / Vegetarian and vegan diets are becoming more common in Sweden. Many dismiss meat and dairy products due to environmental aspects and also in favor of animal rights. Human rights is a topic often discussed in politics, in school and at universities. The relationship between animal rights and human rights however are not discussed to the same extent, and how we envision that relationship varies greatly between different people. I believe that there are few who think that other species than humans are completely morally insignificant but the vast majority of people however probably believe that we humans are, in the eyes of morality, at least more important. I imagine there are few who have considered how the relationship between human and animal rights look in great detail and with this essay I hope that we can get a clearer picture of that relationship.

Humans objectify or designate certain animals to specific roles. These roles are often learned in childhood and followed into adulthood. Though there is more literature on the nonhuman animal industries nowadays than ever, there are still gaps in knowledge and work to be done concerning childhood speciesism. This qualitative study aims to reveal how childhood perspectives toward nonhuman animals are established. The study's findings indicate speciesism may develop in early age children due to parental and environmental influences. Parents were found to influence speciesism in children through teaching the distinct roles animals play in our society. As adults, parents were aware of the health, environmental, and ethical issues regarding animal and animal products, yet encouraged their children's consumption of animals or animal products. Parents were found to use euphemisms, or indirect language, to intentionally shield their children from understanding farm animals as food. However, parents were also found to be open-minded and willing to accommodate a vegan/vegetarian diet upon their child's request. The study introduced the idea of children favoring animals to which they could relate. The findings also revealed that children respond negatively to animals used as educational tools, such as animals in zoological facilities, household pets, and classroom pets. This paper explores the development of the child-animal paradox: speciesism in childhood.

No description available.

No description available.

This thesis makes an original contribution to knowledge by exploring parliamentary left and anarchistic approaches to animal advocacy using a Critical Animal Studies (CAS) framework. This is significant because CAS is a field of scholarship which developed in order to theoretically support animal activists; nonetheless, in its focus on direct action and its rejection of reformist politics, CAS has too often ignored the legislative developments which are extremely important to most animal activists. Therefore, this thesis makes an overarching claim that CAS scholarship should treat the relationship between direct action and legislative reform more seriously. This thesis considers the relationship between direct action activists and legislative politics and as such makes a useful contribution to both CAS and wider animal rights scholarship. More broadly, the thesis provides a particularly useful assessment of one social movement at a time of rapidly changing moral, political and activist landscapes as Britain enters a new ‘age of dissent'.

CoordenaÃÃo de AperfeÃoamento de Pessoal de NÃvel Superior / Este trabalho pretende mostrar que o debate sobre os Direitos Animais possui relevÃncia filosÃfica. Ele destaca o fato de que questÃes concernentes aos animais remetem tambÃm ao homem. Trata-se de um esforÃo para mostrar que restringir aos seres humanos a condiÃÃo de detentores de direitos morais consiste num equÃvoco e, portanto, hà a necessidade de uma Ãtica nÃo antropocÃntrica. O foco principal à a contribuiÃÃo de Tom Regan, o autor afirma que por serem sencientes, os animais sÃo sujeitos de uma vida e possuem o que ele chama de valor inerente, ou seja, suas vidas tÃm um valor e fim em si. Tais afirmaÃÃes sÃo fundamentadas em pesquisas cientÃficas sobre a consciÃncia animal e estudos de etologia. à tambÃm objeto desta investigaÃÃo a abordagem de Peter Singer, que defende o Bem-estarismo animal tendo a senciÃncia como um princÃpio moral. Ressaltamos ainda que, uma vez que a expressÃo âdireitos dos animaisâ comumente se refere à concessÃo de respeito pelos seres humanos aos animais a partir de determinados critÃrios sem que lhes caibam direitos especÃficos, a noÃÃo de âdireitos animaisâ parte do pressuposto de que possuem direitos e que devemos reconhecÃ-los a despeito de nossa vontade; tentaremos corroborar a segunda tese. / This work is intended to show that the debate concerning animal rights is philosophically relevant. It points out the fact that animal issues are related to human beings as well. Therefore, this dissertation is an effort to demonstrate that it is wrong to attribute only to human beings the status of holders of moral rights and that it is necessary to conceive an ethical framework grounded on a non-anthropocentric view. Particular attention is devoted here to the contribution of Tom Reagan who asserts animals are subjects of life and possess what is called inherent value, i.e., animalsâ lives are not means to accomplish ends external to themselves. These affirmations are grounded on scientific studies of animal consciousness and on ethology. Peter Singerâs defense of the well-being of animals based on the fact that they are sentient beings will be also investigated. The expression rights of animals is not used in the context of this demarche because it relates to the respect humans beings should have to non-human animals without the recognition of them as holders of specific moral rights. The expression animal rights is purported to corroborate the notion that such rights are a reality to be accepted regardless the will of human beings.

As with other forms of animal rights activism, animal foster care also appears to be dominated by women. In this paper I explore the role of animal foster care in, and its implications for, a Patriarchal society based on hierarchical dualisms. I argue that through their work as animal foster care workers and adoption facilitators these women do create positions of power for themselves, but that those positions remain subordinated to, and in some ways embrace, existing structural power relations--Patriarchy. More specifically, I argue that by constructing and assuming a social role that includes a culturally accepted power differential--the human-animal dichotomy--these women challenge individual level powerlessness, yet reinforce the very structural system that oppresses them and the animals in their care. I highlight how, by organizing around ideas about feral, abandoned, and surrendered animals as innocent and in need of human help and intervention and thus a social problem, these women simultaneously construct themselves as experts on human-animal relations, and the family. As adoption experts, these women exercise authority in deciding what constitutes a "good" match between animals and their adoptive human families. Constructing and maintaining "a" meaning of pets as family members, furthermore, enables women to maintain their traditional sphere of power--the private realm of home and family. I argue that through such constructions and practices animal foster care workers help alleviate the current "social problem" of animal homelessness,yet perpetuate hierarchical relations and the idea that animals need human help.

<p>Jakttraditionen är ett exempel på speciesism – diskriminering av en individ på grund av dess arttillhörighet. Jakten rättfärdigas helt enkelt av att djurens liv inte antas ha samma värde som människans. Men jakten är också ett till synes mycket mansdominerat och heteronormativt fält. Denna text är en diskussion kring parallellerna mellan heteronormativa strukturer och jakttraditionen, baserat på en undersökning av språket och attityderna i jakttidskrifter och analyserat ur ett queerteoretiskt och antispeciesistiskt perspektiv.</p><p>Jag har undersökt jakttidskrifternas texter utifrån kategorierna kontroll, objektifiering och kategorisering, maskulinitetsnormering, våldsglorifiering, och hierarkistrukturering, som alla bidrar till ett speciesistiskt förhållningssätt, och som därmed är förutsättningar för jaktens varande och rättfärdigande. I dessa kategorier har jag så letat efter paralleller till heteronormativa och androcentriska traditioner.</p><p>Parallellerna visade sig vara många och ofta tydliga, och fanns inom samtliga de undersökta områdena – alla de undersökta områden som möjliggör jakttraditionen, är också grundläggande för en androcentrisk samhällsstruktur och för ett fortsatt förtryck av icke-heteronormativa personer.</p><p>Slutsatsen blir att traditioner som gynnar förhärskande strukturer och som leder till förtryck och ofrihet för en grupp också riskerar att automatiskt drabba andra förtryckta grupper. Och omvänt, kan därmed vunna rättigheter för en förtryckt grupp försvaga de förhärskande strukturerna överlag, och på det sättet också ge ökade möjligheter för andra förtryckta grupper att hävda sin rätt.</p> / <p>The hunting tradition is an example of speciesism – discrimination of an individual on the grounds of to which species it belongs. Hunting is justified by the presumption that the life of an animal is of a lesser value than the life of human being. But hunting is also a seemingly very male dominated and hetero-normative field. This text is a discussion around the parallels between hetero-normative structures and the hunting tradition, based on an examination on the language and attitudes in hunting magazines, and analyzed from a queer theoretic and antispeciesist perspective.</p><p>The examination of the texts are made from the categories of control, objectification and categorization, masculinity standardization, glorification of violence, and hierarchic structuring, which are all of them contributing to a speciesist view, and by such are crucial for the being and justification of hunting. Within these categories, I have then looked for parallels with hetero-normative and androcentric traditions.</p><p>The parallels proved to be many and often obvious, and were found within all of the examined fields – all of the examined fields which give possibility for the hunting tradition, are also fundamental for an androcentrically structured society and a continued oppression of non-hetero-normative persons.</p><p>In conclusion, traditions which are favouring predominant structures and which leads to oppression and lack of freedom for one group also risk to automatically affect other oppressed groups. And in reverse, rights won for one oppressed group may weaken the predominant structures overall, and by such also bring increased opportunities for other oppressed groups to claim their rights too.</p>