More documents from Stein, Tine
More documents from Historical Social Research

Export to your Reference Manger

Please Copy & Paste



Bookmark and Share

Human rights and animal rights: differences matter

Menschenrechte und Tierrechte: auf die Unterschiede kommt es an
[journal article]

Stein, Tine


This full text is available after a period of embargo until the 17 Dec. 2016

Citation Suggestion

Please use the following Persistent Identifier (PID) to cite this document:

Further Details
Abstract This critique of Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka’s important book, Zoopolis, asks in what respect humans and animals categorically differ and to what extent this difference counts in a moral sense. Second, the text explains why it is illegitimate to equate human victims of racial discrimination and murder with tormented and killed animals. Finally, it is demonstrated why the conceptual analogies to animals presented in this book, namely 'co-citizens' as a term for animals that live in companionship with humans, 'denizens' for those animals that cross borders between human and natural living spaces, and 'sovereign nations' for wild animals, have to be interpreted as overstretched analogies. The main thesis is that the promise of the book - to develop a political theory of animals' rights - remains unfulfilled.
Keywords human rights; animal; law; value; morality; ethics; human dignity; equality; political theory
Classification Philosophy, Ethics, Religion; Law
Free Keywords Zoopolis; citizenship; human-animal relations; animal rights; human rights
Document language English
Publication Year 2015
Page/Pages p. 55-62
Journal Historical Social Research, 40 (2015) 4
Issue topic Animal politics: a new research agenda in political theory
ISSN 0172-6404
Status Published Version; peer reviewed
Licence Creative Commons - Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works