The Animal Question: Why Non-Human Animals Deserve Human Rights [Hardcover]

Paola Cavalieri (Author), Catherine Woollard (Translator)

Book Description

Publication Date: December 6, 2001 | ISBN-10: 0195143809 | ISBN-13: 978-0195143805

How much do animals matter--morally? Can we keep considering them as second class beings, to be used merely for our benefit? Or, should we offer them some form of moral egalitarianism? Inserting itself into the passionate debate over animal rights, this fascinating, provocative work by renowned scholar Paola Cavalieri advances a radical proposal: that we extend basic human rights to the nonhuman animals we currently treat as "things."

Cavalieri first goes back in time, tracing the roots of the debate from the 1970s, then explores not only the ethical but also the scientific viewpoints, examining the debate's precedents in mainstream Western philosophy. She considers the main proposals of reform that recently have been advanced within the framework of today's prevailing ethical perspectives. Are these proposals satisfying? Cavalieri says no, claiming that it is necessary to go beyond the traditional opposition between utilitarianism and Kantianism and focus on the question of fundamental moral protection. In the case of human beings, such protection is granted within the widely shared moral doctrine of universal human rights' theory. Cavalieri argues that if we examine closely this theory, we will discover that its very logic extends to nonhuman animals as beings who are owed basic moral and legal rights and that, as a result, human rights are not human after all.

Editorial Reviews

Review

"A brilliant, concise statement of the argument for attributing basic rights to animals, and a significant new contribution to the current debate. Ms. Cavalieri shows that contemporary discussions in ethics and bioethics risk arbitrariness or incoherence because they have failed to tackle the issue of the status of animals. From now on, opponents of animal rights must try to answer Ms. Cavalieri's argument, and anyone writing in bioethics will have to meet her challenge."--Peter Singer, Princeton University

"This short, elegent, and well-focused book does exactly what it says on the jacket, both front and back, and puts the case for attributing basic human rights to animals. Unlike many who take this side, Cavalieri's argument, set firmly and openly within the analytic tradition, is austere and rigorous throughout, and has none of the hyperbole, the tugging at heart-strings, the harsh detailing that characterizes much that is written in defense of animals."--Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews

About the Author

Paola Cavalieri is editor of the international philosophy journal Etica & Animali, and has published widely in the area of applied ethics. She co-edited, with Peter Singer, the award-winning 1993 book The Great Ape Project: Equality Beyond Humanity.
--This text refers to the Paperback edition.

Product Details

• Hardcover: 192 pages
• Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA (December 6, 2001)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0195143809
• ISBN-13: 978-0195143805
• Product Dimensions: 8.4 x 5.8 x 0.8 inches
• Shipping Weight: 12.5 ounces
• Average Customer Review: 2.5 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (2 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #876,276 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

4 of 6 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars despite cute cover, not an ideal introduction to topic, August 12, 2002

By A Customer

This review is from: The Animal Question: Why Non-Human Animals Deserve Human Rights (Hardcover)

Despite the book's cute cover, for most people this is not an ideal introduction to ethics and animals topics. The problem is that it's just not an ideally clear and straightforward example of philosophical writing. It's not an easy book to read. Perhaps this is because it's in translation, but I think many -- unless they are already skilled in reading philosophy -- will have a real hard time with it. Try DeGrazia's book or the "Magpies, Men and Morals" book for a more accessible introduction. The content of this is good, it's just not as accessible as it should be.

3 of 6 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars Why nonhuman animals deserve human rights, December 3, 2002

By 

Jennifer Payne (Louisville, KY United States) - See all my reviews

This review is from: The Animal Question: Why Non-Human Animals Deserve Human Rights (Hardcover)

Why Nonhuman Animals Deserve Human Rights

Nonhuman animals have been an issue being discussed in philosophical debates in recent years. The question that is often asked is " is it right to treat nonhuman animals as a means to our ends?" In other words, "is it morally justified to use these animals for food, entertainment, or tools in research? As Cavalieri points out, nonhuman animals deserve the same respect and equality as humans. He argues it is wrong to treat nonhuman animals simply as mere things in which one can do what he/she wants with these innocent creatures. After reading The Animal Question, I believe that the argument for Cavalieri's conclusion is strong.
The overall premises that Cavalieri uses to provide evidence for his conclusion can be summarized as follows:

1. The idea of equality needs to be based on the capacity to feel pain and pleasure, to pursue one's goals, and to enjoy one's life, rather than basing it on one's morals, values, and/or interests because if this change did occur, equality could not continue being effective for homo sapiens specifically. Nonhuman animals would have to be included.

2. Similar situations create different effects for animals than it does for human beings. An example Cavalieri uses is the idea of being captured. If a human is captured during a time of war, we can explain to them that their lives are not being threatened and there is no reason to worry. However, if we take a similar situation, capturing animals that have been free their whole lives, we cannot explain to them that they will not be harmed. Therefore the animals will have a greater feeling of fear than the humans. Nonhuman animals do not understand the difference, therefore making this type of action wrong and unfair.

3. Nonhuman animals should not be made to feel pain and suffer for the good of humans. They should not be thought of as machines in which humans can do with them as they wish.

4. Nonhuman animals are conscious and have desires. Their minds are similar to humans and should be treated in the same ways.

5. The removal of nonhumans from the category of things or items of property is essential to ending the inequality of nonhuman animals.

Cavalieri's argument is an inductively strong one. Because the argument has all true premises, it is also an inductively cogent argument. The argument is complete due to the fact that all relevant evidence is taken into account. Throughout the book, Cavalieri uses others different as well as similar opinions, such as Peter Singers, Harlan B. Miller, and Will Kymlicka, to support good and convincing reasons to support his own premises and conclusion. With all these qualities, it is obvious that he has given a strong, convincing argument.
In conclusion, Cavalieri offers a strong argument for his conclusion. The other people he used throughout the book who often presented different ideas than his own failed to convince me as well as Cavalieri that animals are only here for human conception. Although Cavalieri was difficult to follow in a sense, his basic idea that animals have rights too, was conveyed. Perhaps in our society, animal rights is an issue similar to that of abortion, religion, etc. in that people think that their way of thinking on a certain issue is the only way, and it is often difficult to convince others to adopt a different belief system. Although this causes some distress, I've come to realize that there will probably not be an end to using animals for food, clothing, and entertainment. We (including Cavalieri) that one day we will find out from God if animals were put on earth for that reason. It is wrong to use nonhuman animals as a means to our ends.