Grounded in Love: A Theistic Account of Animal Rights

Journal of Animal Ethics 6 (1):67-80 (2016)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This article attempts to articulate a grounding of animal rights based on inherent worth as the most fitting way to draw attention to the moral status of animals. The primary objective is to identify the proper grounds of those rights. To that end, two influential philosophical accounts of animal rights are first surveyed: Martha Nussbaum’s capabilities approach and Tom Regan’s deontological argument. These are followed by two theistic accounts of rights put forth by Andrew Linzey and Nicholas Wolterstorff. It is argued that the latter two complementary accounts based on inherent worth bestowed by God develop a stronger grounding than versions grounded on intrinsic capacities.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 100,752

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2017-12-19

Downloads
27 (#821,816)

6 months
8 (#574,086)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The Case for Animal Rights.Tom Regan & Mary Midgley - 1986 - The Personalist Forum 2 (1):67-71.
Animal theology.Andrew Linzey & Brian Scarlett - 1995 - Sophia 34 (2):99-104.
Man and the State.Jacques Maritain & Yves R. Simon - 1952 - Ethics 62 (2):144-146.
God's velveteen rabbit.Paul Weithman - 2009 - Journal of Religious Ethics 37 (2):243-260.

Add more references