Ética e direitos dos animais: a questão do especismo e do antiespecismo na filosofia política contemporânea
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2021 |
Tipo de documento: | Dissertação |
Idioma: | por |
Título da fonte: | Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da UFPB |
Texto Completo: | https://repositorio.ufpb.br/jspui/handle/123456789/22698 |
Resumo: | Analysis of the debate on the issue of animal rights in three dialoguing philosophical perspectives: speciesism, anti-speciesism and non-speciesism. The objective is to analyze each of these aspects, without the intention of exhausting any of them, from three paradigmatic thinkers: Carl Cohen, Tom Regan and Peter Singer. The investigation is developed taking as an entry point for the debate the proposal of Carl Cohen who denies that animals have rights, but defends that humans have responsibilities towards animals. Next, Tom Regan's conception as a litigant to the previous one is presented, since he not only criticizes Carl Cohen's speciesism but also states that non-human animals are beings that have rights by sharing gender properties, among which, to be able to feel pain and have emotions like humans. Finally, the ideas of non-speciesism are presented through Peter Singer's thinking, both in terms of the thesis of the moral necessity of guaranteeing rights to animals, and of basing human and animal relationships on practical ethics. This is done not only because of the philosophical dialogue between these authors regarding the object (animals have or do not have rights), but also because of the philosophical adherence to utilitarianism, although each one has a different conception of what is meant by “very common". It is believed that Peter Singer's perspective is the one that best meets the expectations of contemporary society, which not only have to balance ingrained habits (such as a meat-based diet and scientific experiments using animals) with the political demands of new social agents (including veganism), in terms of thinking about the new interfaces of modern law, including the possibility of including animals in this debate. Finally, it is argued that from the path proposed by Peter Singer it is possible to keep the dialogue open, think about the exceptions that the issue demands and carry out the project of including the issue of animal rights in the contemporary philosophical debate. |
id |
UFPB_1d0028d29dbe6849f4a07f90a0617a8e |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:repositorio.ufpb.br:123456789/22698 |
network_acronym_str |
UFPB |
network_name_str |
Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da UFPB |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Ética e direitos dos animais: a questão do especismo e do antiespecismo na filosofia política contemporâneaEspecismoAntiespecismoNão-especismoÉtica práticaDireito dos animaisSpeciesismAnti-speciesismNo speciesismPractical ethicsAnimal rightsCNPQ::CIENCIAS HUMANAS::FILOSOFIAAnalysis of the debate on the issue of animal rights in three dialoguing philosophical perspectives: speciesism, anti-speciesism and non-speciesism. The objective is to analyze each of these aspects, without the intention of exhausting any of them, from three paradigmatic thinkers: Carl Cohen, Tom Regan and Peter Singer. The investigation is developed taking as an entry point for the debate the proposal of Carl Cohen who denies that animals have rights, but defends that humans have responsibilities towards animals. Next, Tom Regan's conception as a litigant to the previous one is presented, since he not only criticizes Carl Cohen's speciesism but also states that non-human animals are beings that have rights by sharing gender properties, among which, to be able to feel pain and have emotions like humans. Finally, the ideas of non-speciesism are presented through Peter Singer's thinking, both in terms of the thesis of the moral necessity of guaranteeing rights to animals, and of basing human and animal relationships on practical ethics. This is done not only because of the philosophical dialogue between these authors regarding the object (animals have or do not have rights), but also because of the philosophical adherence to utilitarianism, although each one has a different conception of what is meant by “very common". It is believed that Peter Singer's perspective is the one that best meets the expectations of contemporary society, which not only have to balance ingrained habits (such as a meat-based diet and scientific experiments using animals) with the political demands of new social agents (including veganism), in terms of thinking about the new interfaces of modern law, including the possibility of including animals in this debate. Finally, it is argued that from the path proposed by Peter Singer it is possible to keep the dialogue open, think about the exceptions that the issue demands and carry out the project of including the issue of animal rights in the contemporary philosophical debate.NenhumaAnálise do debate sobre a questão dos direitos dos animais em três perspectivas filosóficas dialogantes: especismo, antiespecismo e não-especismo. Objetiva-se analisar cada uma dessas vertentes, sem a intenção de exaurir nenhuma delas, a partir de três pensadores paradigmáticos: Carl Cohen, Tom Regan e Peter Singer. Desenvolve-se a investigação tomando como ponto de entrada para o debate a proposta de Carl Cohen que nega que os animais tenham direitos, mas defende que os humanos têm responsabilidades para com os animais. Em seguida, apresenta-se a concepção de Tom Regan como litigante à anterior, uma vez que não apenas critica o especismo de Carl Cohen como também afirma que os animais não-humanos são seres que detêm direitos por compartilharem propriedades de gênero, dentre as quais, poderem sentir dor e terem emoções como os humanos. Por fim, apresentam se as ideias do não-especismo por meio do pensamento de Peter Singer, tanto no tocante à tese da necessidade moral de garantir direitos aos animais, quanto na de fundamentar as relações humanos e animais na ética prática. Procede-se assim não apenas em virtude do diálogo filosófico entre esses autores quanto ao objeto (animais possuem ou não direitos), mas, igualmente, em virtude da adesão filosófica ao utilitarismo, embora cada qual tenha uma concepção distinta do que se entenda por “bem comum”. Acredita-se que a perspectiva de Peter Singer seja aquela que melhor atende as expectativas da sociedade contemporânea que não apenas têm que dosar hábitos arraigados (como a dieta à base de carne e as experimentações científicas usando animais) com as demandas políticas dos novos agentes sociais (incluindo o veganismo), quanto a pensar as novas interfaces do direito moderno, incluindo a possibilidade de incluir os animais neste debate. Defende-se, por fim, que a partir da via proposta por Peter Singer é possível manter o diálogo aberto, pensar as exceções que a questão demanda e levar adiante o projeto de incluir a questão dos direitos dos animais no debate filosófico contemporâneo.Universidade Federal da ParaíbaBrasilFilosofiaPrograma de Pós-Graduação em FilosofiaUFPBBonneau, Cristianohttp://lattes.cnpq.br/2670125943797682Oliveira, Hélio Rosa de2022-04-19T20:11:54Z2022-01-282022-04-19T20:11:54Z2021-12-10info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesishttps://repositorio.ufpb.br/jspui/handle/123456789/22698porAttribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Brazilhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/br/info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da UFPBinstname:Universidade Federal da Paraíba (UFPB)instacron:UFPB2022-04-25T17:02:35Zoai:repositorio.ufpb.br:123456789/22698Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertaçõeshttps://repositorio.ufpb.br/PUBhttp://tede.biblioteca.ufpb.br:8080/oai/requestdiretoria@ufpb.br|| diretoria@ufpb.bropendoar:2022-04-25T17:02:35Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da UFPB - Universidade Federal da Paraíba (UFPB)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Ética e direitos dos animais: a questão do especismo e do antiespecismo na filosofia política contemporânea |
title |
Ética e direitos dos animais: a questão do especismo e do antiespecismo na filosofia política contemporânea |
spellingShingle |
Ética e direitos dos animais: a questão do especismo e do antiespecismo na filosofia política contemporânea Oliveira, Hélio Rosa de Especismo Antiespecismo Não-especismo Ética prática Direito dos animais Speciesism Anti-speciesism No speciesism Practical ethics Animal rights CNPQ::CIENCIAS HUMANAS::FILOSOFIA |
title_short |
Ética e direitos dos animais: a questão do especismo e do antiespecismo na filosofia política contemporânea |
title_full |
Ética e direitos dos animais: a questão do especismo e do antiespecismo na filosofia política contemporânea |
title_fullStr |
Ética e direitos dos animais: a questão do especismo e do antiespecismo na filosofia política contemporânea |
title_full_unstemmed |
Ética e direitos dos animais: a questão do especismo e do antiespecismo na filosofia política contemporânea |
title_sort |
Ética e direitos dos animais: a questão do especismo e do antiespecismo na filosofia política contemporânea |
author |
Oliveira, Hélio Rosa de |
author_facet |
Oliveira, Hélio Rosa de |
author_role |
author |
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv |
Bonneau, Cristiano http://lattes.cnpq.br/2670125943797682 |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Oliveira, Hélio Rosa de |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Especismo Antiespecismo Não-especismo Ética prática Direito dos animais Speciesism Anti-speciesism No speciesism Practical ethics Animal rights CNPQ::CIENCIAS HUMANAS::FILOSOFIA |
topic |
Especismo Antiespecismo Não-especismo Ética prática Direito dos animais Speciesism Anti-speciesism No speciesism Practical ethics Animal rights CNPQ::CIENCIAS HUMANAS::FILOSOFIA |
description |
Analysis of the debate on the issue of animal rights in three dialoguing philosophical perspectives: speciesism, anti-speciesism and non-speciesism. The objective is to analyze each of these aspects, without the intention of exhausting any of them, from three paradigmatic thinkers: Carl Cohen, Tom Regan and Peter Singer. The investigation is developed taking as an entry point for the debate the proposal of Carl Cohen who denies that animals have rights, but defends that humans have responsibilities towards animals. Next, Tom Regan's conception as a litigant to the previous one is presented, since he not only criticizes Carl Cohen's speciesism but also states that non-human animals are beings that have rights by sharing gender properties, among which, to be able to feel pain and have emotions like humans. Finally, the ideas of non-speciesism are presented through Peter Singer's thinking, both in terms of the thesis of the moral necessity of guaranteeing rights to animals, and of basing human and animal relationships on practical ethics. This is done not only because of the philosophical dialogue between these authors regarding the object (animals have or do not have rights), but also because of the philosophical adherence to utilitarianism, although each one has a different conception of what is meant by “very common". It is believed that Peter Singer's perspective is the one that best meets the expectations of contemporary society, which not only have to balance ingrained habits (such as a meat-based diet and scientific experiments using animals) with the political demands of new social agents (including veganism), in terms of thinking about the new interfaces of modern law, including the possibility of including animals in this debate. Finally, it is argued that from the path proposed by Peter Singer it is possible to keep the dialogue open, think about the exceptions that the issue demands and carry out the project of including the issue of animal rights in the contemporary philosophical debate. |
publishDate |
2021 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2021-12-10 2022-04-19T20:11:54Z 2022-01-28 2022-04-19T20:11:54Z |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesis |
format |
masterThesis |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://repositorio.ufpb.br/jspui/handle/123456789/22698 |
url |
https://repositorio.ufpb.br/jspui/handle/123456789/22698 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por |
language |
por |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Brazil http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/br/ info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Brazil http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/br/ |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Federal da Paraíba Brasil Filosofia Programa de Pós-Graduação em Filosofia UFPB |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Federal da Paraíba Brasil Filosofia Programa de Pós-Graduação em Filosofia UFPB |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da UFPB instname:Universidade Federal da Paraíba (UFPB) instacron:UFPB |
instname_str |
Universidade Federal da Paraíba (UFPB) |
instacron_str |
UFPB |
institution |
UFPB |
reponame_str |
Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da UFPB |
collection |
Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da UFPB |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da UFPB - Universidade Federal da Paraíba (UFPB) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
diretoria@ufpb.br|| diretoria@ufpb.br |
_version_ |
1801842992109060096 |