A Thinking Reed

"Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing in nature, but he is a thinking reed" – Blaise Pascal

Animal Rights and Issues

  • Creaturely Theology

    Anyone out there familiar with the anthology Creaturely Theology: God, Humans, and Other Animals edited by Celia Dean-Drummond and David Clough? I’m intrigued, but can’t seem to find much information about it online, and the cost is a bit prohibitive for buying sight unseen. Read more

  • Links: food, animals, the environment, etc.

    This piece from the Boston Globe looks at the tensions between an increasing sense of idealism among zoo officials–they want to treat their animals better and raise awareness of wildlife conservation–and the undeniable need to entertain zoos’ human visitors. James McWilliams writes on the recent report out of the UK which found that organic foods Read more

  • WASM 6: Concluding thoughts

    (See previous posts: 1|2|3|4|5) So, what has Linzey accomplished here? What I think his argument does–at least–is shift the burden of proof. Most of us, if we’re being honest, believe that animals suffer and that their suffering matters morally, at least to some degree. Few non-sociopaths think that it’s a matter of sheer moral indifference Read more

  • Dept. of straw men (and other animals)

    Not that it will dissuade anyone, but Julian Sanchez points out the obvious: I know very many vegetarians and vegans. I do not think a single one of them..holds the view that “animals are morally equivalent to humans.” The “moral equivalence” line is a staple of anti-animal-rights rhetoric. This isn’t to deny that there are–somewhere–vegetarians/vegans/AR Read more

  • WASM 5: sed contra

    (See previous posts: 1|2|3|4) In addition to the critique of Peter Singer, Linzey’s final chapter in Why Animal Suffering Matters contains replies to six objections: 1. The practices of hunting, fur farming, and sealing are relatively trivial and non-controversial compared to issues like animal testing. Linzey acknowledges that practices like animal testing and factory farming Read more

  • WASM 4: Linzey vs. Singer

    (Previous posts are here, here, and here.) In his concluding chapter to Why Animal Suffering Matters, Linzey does address one of the concerns I raised in my previous post in the course of taking some pains to distinguish his program from that of utilitarians like Peter Singer. While appreciating Singer’s contribution to the cause of Read more

  • WASM 3: The fox and the hound (and the mink and the seal)

    (See previous posts here and here.) In the central chapters (3-5) of Why Animal Suffering Matters, Linzey critically examines three practices: sport hunting (focusing on hunting with dogs in the UK); fur farming; and seal hunting, particularly the Candian seal hunt. I was surprised that there was no chapter on raising animals for food, since Read more

  • WASM 2: Engaging the powers

    Having established the moral significance of animal suffering, Linzey goes on in chapter 2 to ask why, if the importance of animal suffering is so clear, has it been so often ignored? After all, as Stephen R. L. Clark has pointed out, it’s hard to identify a more obvious moral truism than “Avoid being the Read more

  • WASM 1: The difference that difference makes

    In chapter 1 of Why Animal Suffering Matters, Linzey identifies several differences between humans and non-human animals that are typically offered as justifications for disregarding the interests of animals. In a neat twist, though, he aims to show that, properly understood, they call for a greater consideration of animal interests. Animals as natural slaves: Aristotle Read more

  • Coming attractions

    Last week I received my copy of Andrew Linzey’s new book, Why Animal Suffering Matters. I’ve only just started it, but it looks like Linzey develops in more detail an argument that he’s deployed in some of his other works: the differences between animals and humans, instead of justifying a lower moral status for animals, Read more