Gary Lawrence Francione

Anna Charlton

***SPECIAL OFFER***Take $2 OFF per copy purchased through CreateSpace (https://www.createspace.com/4423398) with discount code: Z8RZS95MThis book puts the issue of eating animals squarely on the table.We all claim to care about animals and to regard them as having at least some moral value. We all claim to agree that it's wrong to inflict “unnecessary” suffering and death on animals and--whatever disagreement we may have about when animal use is necessary—we all agree that the suffering and death of animals cannot be justified by human pleasure, amusement, or convenience. We condemn Michael Vick for dog fighting precisely because we feel strongly that any pleasure that Vick got from this activity could not possibly justify what he did.So how can we justify the fact that we kill many billions of land animals and fish every year for food? However “humanely” we treat and kill these animals, the amount of animal suffering we cause is staggering. Yet no one maintains that animal foods are necessary for optimal health. Indeed, mounting empirical evidence points to animal foods being detrimental for human health. But however you evaluate that evidence, there can be no serious doubt that we can have excellent health with a vegan diet. There is also broad consensus that animal agriculture is an ecological disaster. Animal agriculture is responsible for water pollution, air pollution, deforestation, soil erosion, inefficient use of plant protein and water, and all sorts of other environmental harms. The best justification we have for the unimaginable amount of suffering and death that we impose on animals is that they taste good. We enjoy the taste of animal foods. But how is this any different from Michal Vick claiming that his dog fighting operation was justifiable because he enjoyed watching dogs fight? Vick liked sitting around a pit watching animals fight. We enjoy sitting around the summer barbecue pit roasting the corpses of animals who have had lives and deaths that are as bad, if not worse than, Vick's dogs. What is the difference between Michael Vick and those of us who eat animal foods?This book shows that there is no difference, or at least not any difference that matters morally.Francione and Charlton argue that if you think animals matter morally—if you reject the idea that animals are just things—your own beliefs require that you stop eating animal products. There is nothing "extreme" about a vegan diet; what is extreme is the inconsistency between what we say we believe and how we act where animals are concerned.Many of us are uneasy thinking about the animals who end up on our plates. We may have thought about stopping eating animal products but there are many excuses that have kept us from doing so. The authors explore the 30+ excuses they have heard as long-time vegans and address each one, showing why these excuses don't work. Packed with clear, commonsense thinking on animal ethics, without jargon or complicated theory, this book will change the way you think about what you eat.

An Examination of the Morality of Eating Animals

Eat Like You Care

Renan Akman

Elçin Gen

çocuğunuz mu köpeğiniz mi?

Hayvan haklarına giriş

Gary Steiner

Gary L. Francione explains our historical and contemporary attitudes about animals by distinguishing the issue of animal use from that of animal treatment. He then presents a theory of animal rights that focuses on the need to accord all sentient nonhumans the right not to be treated as property.

Essays on the Abolition of Animal Exploitation

Animals as Persons

Robert Garner

"The Animal Rights Debate presents the views of two preeminent thinkers working on a key debate in the study of the moral status of animalsùnamely, do animals deserve to be treated well while we use them to satisfy our needs and desires, or do animals deserve not to be used to satisfy human desires at all? This is a subject of extremely heated debate in animal studies and society at large, and Gary L. Francione and Robert Garner address it as no others can."ùGary Steiner, Bucknell University Gary L. Francione is a law professor and leading philosopher of animal rights theory. Robert Garner is a political theorist specializing in the philosophy and politics of animal protection. Francione maintains that we have no moral justification for using nonhumans and argues that because animals are propertyùor economic commoditiesùlaws or industry practices requiring "humane" treatment will, as a general matter, fail to provide any meaningful level of protection. Garner favors a version of animal rights that focuses on eliminating animal suffering and adopts a protectionist approach, maintaining that although the traditional animal-welfare ethic is philosophically flawed, it can contribute strategically to the achievement of animal rights ends. As they spar, Francione and Garner deconstruct the animal protection movement in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe, and elsewhere, discussing the practices of such organizations as PETA, which joins with McDonald's and other animal users to "improve" the slaughter of animals. They also examine American and European laws and campaigns from both the rights and welfare perspectives, identifying weaknesses and strengths that give shape to future legislation and action. "Francione and Garner challenge each other, and their readers, to reevaluate our relations with the nonhuman. Should we seek merely to reform our present practices in farms, laboratories, zoos, and households, or should we give them up entirely? The authors debate practical and theoretical issues clearly, honestly, courteously, and with all appropriate passion. Neither persuades the other, but both together must persuade many that change is needed."ùStephen Clark associate editor, British Journal for the History of Philosophy "Francione's and Garner's positions correspond approximately with the dominant ethics underlying the American political campaigns and the British/European ones, respectively, raising the unresolved question as to which has proved the most effective. In the end, they skillfully fill in some of the gaps between areas of speciesism ethics, on the one hand, and law and politics, on the other."ùRichard Ryder author of Speciesism and Painism: A Morality for the Twenty-first Century

Abolition Or Regulation?

The Animal Rights Debate

Un Análisis Sobre la Moralidad Del Consumo de Animales

Come Con Conciencia

Gary Lawrence Francione

Books

Your next favorite book is out there