The divide between idealism and practicality in animals' fundamental rights recognition

Bibliographic Data

ID13112411
AuthorsMari-Ann Susi (Tallinn University, corresponding author)
Year2022
Volume13
Issue2
Pages446-474
Publication date2022-01-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenuePravni zapisi (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 2406-1387 • E-ISSN: 2217-2815
PublisherFaculty of Agronomy in Čačak (PUBLISHER • RS)
DOI10.5937/pravzap0-40655
OpenAlexW4313635765
LanguageEN
References cited24

Contemporary theoretical discourse views animals as a vulnerable group, and also recognizes their capability of mental suffering. The question why this recognition has not been translated into a global and universally accepted accordance of fundamental rights to certain groups of animals is relevant for animal rights protection, while at the same time it illustrates the divide between the idealistic and normative dimensions of law. It appears that humans have known for thousands of years that at least some animals are capable of mental suffering and constitute a vulnerable group. Changes in animal rights protection have led to some changes in legislation, but these are not fundamental and do not concern the strive toward universal recognition that animals have fundamental rights. This means that there must be some other, decisive factors that are needed to move forward from the stage of vulnerability recognition to the normative development stage

Animal rights · Computer security · Epistemology · Fundamental rights · Human rights · Idealism · Law and economics · Legislation · Normative · Political science · Sociology · Vulnerability (computing · Animal testing and alternatives · Computer Science · Human-Animal Interaction Studies · Law · Philosophy · Psychology · Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access