"Moving Beyond Animal Rights: A Legal/Contractualist Critique"

Richard L. Cupp, Jr., (Law, Pepperdine) has passed along some information about a recent article of his in the San Diego Law Review that:

critiques the analogy made by some animal rights theorists between granting rights to "marginal" humans (e.g., mentally incapable adults and infants) and bestowing rights to animals. Moving Beyond Animal Rights: A Legal/Contractualist Critique . . . explores current and historical arguments for granting some rights to mentally incapable humans. The article asserts that none of the major theories of rights for marginal humans are useful analogies for arguments for animal rights.

Here is the SSRN link.

Comments

[Sharon McEachern]

And how would this apply if considering Switzerland's newly adopted animal protection legislation(less than one year old)? The new law spells out in minute detail how all domestic animals are to be treated. This includes pets, farm animals and those destined for scientific experiments. Wild animals are covered if in zoos or circuses.

EVEN GOLDFISH are included. The law specifies in detail how goldfish are to be treated -- live fish cannot be flushed down the toilet. They must be knocked out and killed first -- er, euthanized. Read more about the Swiss law at:

http://www.ethicsoup.com/2008/11/animal-rights-in-switzerland-even-for-goldfish.html#more