ANIMAL LAW: ETHICS, SOCIETY AND CONSTITUTIONS
PDF

Keywords

law
animals
constitutions
ethics
welfare
status
rights

Abstract

The paper discusses and criticizes views on various aspects of the situations of animals within human societies offered by authors presenting at the seminar held at the Research Centre for Public Policy and Regulatory Governance. They include legal, ethical as well as socio-psychological problems about animal welfare and the attempts to improve the conditions in which animals are treated. The author hints at the theoretical background as well as implications of some of the ideas that are advocated in the ongoing legal and ethical debates over animal welfare. The discussion aims to shed some light on how the cross-disciplinary studies and exchanges that include biologists, psychologists, sociologists as well as legal researchers may contribute to numerous controversies in the contemporary animal law scholarship.

https://doi.org/10.14746/sr.2019.3.3.09
PDF

References

Favre, David. 2010. “Living Property: A New Status for Animals Within the Legal System.” Marquette Law Review 93: 1021-1071. Retrieved July 14, 2019 (https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol93/iss3/3).

Fleischman, Diana. 2019. “Universal Morality is Obscured by Evolutionary Morality.” The Evolution Institute. Retrieved July 14, 2019 (https://evolution-institute.org/universal-morality-is-obscured-by-evolved-morality/).

Hume, David. 1998. Enquiries into the Principles of Morals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Perdue, Abigail, Lockwood, Randall. 2014. Animal Cruelty and Freedom of Speech: When Worlds Collide. West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University Press.

Pietrzykowski, Tomasz. 2017. Personhood Beyond Humanism. Animals, Chimeras, Autonomous Agents and the Law. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

Pyszczynski, Tom, Solomon, Sheldon, Greenberg, Jeff L. 2015. “Thirty Years of Terror Management Theory.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 52: 1-70.

Shyam, Geeta. 2018. “Is the Classification of Animals as Property Consistent with Modern Community Attitudes?” UNSW Law Journal 41(4): 1418-1444.