John Hadley (philosopher)

Last updated

John Hadley
Born (1966-09-27) 27 September 1966 (age 57)
Sydney, Australia
NationalityAustralian
Alma mater University of Sydney
Notable workAnimal Property Rights (2015), Animal Neopragmatism (2019)
Era Contemporary philosophy
School Analytic philosophy, pragmatism
Institutions University of Western Sydney
Main interests
 Moral philosophy, political philosophy, metaethics, animal ethics, environmental ethics, neopragmatism
Notable ideas
Animal property rights theory; animal neopragmatism

John Hadley (born 27 September 1966) is an Australian philosopher whose research concerns moral and political philosophy, including animal ethics, environmental ethics, and metaethics. He is currently a senior lecturer in philosophy in the School of Humanities and Communication Arts at Western Sydney University. He has previously taught at Charles Sturt University and the University of Sydney, where he studied as an undergraduate and doctoral candidate. In addition to a variety of articles in peer-reviewed journals and edited collections, he is the author of the 2015 monograph Animal Property Rights (Lexington Books) and the 2019 monograph Animal Neopragmatism (Palgrave Macmillan). He is also the co-editor, with Elisa Aaltola, of the 2015 collection Animal Ethics and Philosophy (Rowman & Littlefield International).

Contents

Hadley is known for his account of animal property rights theory. He proposes that wild animals be offered property rights over their territories, and that guardians be appointed to represent their interests in decision-making procedures. He suggests that this account could be justified directly, on the basis of the interests of the animals concerned, or indirectly, so that natural environments are protected. The theory has received discussion in popular and academic contexts, with critical responses from farming groups and mixed responses from moral and political theorists.

Other work has included a defence of a neopragmatist approach to animal ethics, along with criticism of the metaethical and metaphilosophical assumptions of mainstream animal ethicists. Hadley has also conducted research on normative issues related to animal rights extremism, the aiding of others, and utilitarianism.

Career

Hadley read for a Bachelor of Arts and doctorate in philosophy at the University of Sydney (USYD). [1] His doctoral thesis was supervised by Caroline West, [2] in USYD's Department of Philosophy, and was submitted in 2006 under the title of Animal Property: Reconciling Ecological Communitarianism and Species-egalitarian Liberalism. [3] During his doctoral research, the "basic elements" of his animal property rights theory were "first assembled", [2] leading to the publication of "Nonhuman Animal Property: Reconciling Environmentalism and Animal Rights" in the Journal of Social Philosophy . [4] During this time, he also published in the Journal of Value Inquiry , [5] Philosophy in the Contemporary World , [6] and the Journal of Applied Philosophy , [7] as well as working as a lecturer in the USYD philosophy department and a guest lecturer for the USYD Laboratory Animal Services. [1]

After his PhD, Hadley worked as a lecturer in communication ethics in the Charles Sturt University (CSU) School of Communication and a lecturer in philosophy at the CSU School of Humanities and Social Sciences. [8] He then joined the University of Western Sydney School of Humanities and Communication Arts, first as a lecturer in philosophy, [8] and then as a senior lecturer in philosophy. [1] Animal Ethics and Philosophy: Questioning the Orthodoxy, a collection edited by Hadley with the Finnish philosopher Elisa Aaltola, was published in 2015 by Rowman & Littlefield International. The book aimed to move debate in animal ethics beyond developing extensionist accounts and to examine the metaphilosophical and metaethical problems with extensionist accounts. [9] Hadley's own contribution drew attention to a perceived inconsistent triad in animal rights philosophy: the idea that moral status is determined by psychological factors (like sentience), and not species; that human and nonhuman animals are of the same kind; and that genomic plasticity offers the best explanation for change in natural selection. [10] In the same year, Hadley published a monograph with Lexington Books entitled Animal Property Rights: A Theory of Territory Rights for Wild Animals. The book, partially building upon his doctoral research, presents a large amount of new material on Hadley's animal property rights theory. [2] A second monograph, Animal Neopragmatism, was published in 2019 by Palgrave Macmillan. This presented a neopragmatist approach to animal ethics. [11]

Research

Animal property rights

A coyote scent-marking. Hadley proposes that the territorial behaviour of sentient animals should be used to determine the extent of the space over which they have a property right. Coyote Bandelier Los Alamos NM.jpg
A coyote scent-marking. Hadley proposes that the territorial behaviour of sentient animals should be used to determine the extent of the space over which they have a property right.

Hadley is known for his theory of animal property rights, according to which animals should be afforded property rights over their territory. [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] Hadley has developed his theory of animal property rights through his doctoral research, [17] his 2015 monograph, [18] and other academic works. [4] [19] In addition, he has authored popular articles on the subject for The Guardian , [20] The Conversation [21] and The Ethics Centre. [22] He also discussed the topic on Knowing Animals, a podcast series produced by Siobhan O'Sullivan. [23] His proposal has received attention in the popular press, with strong criticism from farmers' groups and journalists writing on rural affairs. [24]

The practical side of Hadley's proposal rests on two key principles: a guardianship system, according to which knowledgeable guardians would be appointed to represent animal property holders in land management decision-making, and the use of animals' territory-marking behaviour to determine the limits of their property. [25] Hadley rejects first occupancy and labour-mixing accounts of appropriation, [26] and instead suggests that there are two ways that his account might fruitfully be justified. [19] First, it might be justified directly, with reference to the interests of animals. This relies upon the fact that wild animals require their territory in order to satisfy their basic needs and the claim that this results in an interest in territory strong enough to ground a right. If animals have a right to use their territory, Hadley claims, then they necessarily have a property right in that territory. [4] [19] [27] Second, it might be justified indirectly, as animals (of some species, at least) might be given property rights as a means of protecting natural environments. [19] [28] Hadley presents his proposal against the backdrop of an explicit pragmatism, [29] and holds that animal property rights theory has the potential to reconcile animal and environmental ethics. [4] [28]

Hadley's proposal has been placed in the context of the "political turn" in animal ethics; the emergence of animal ethics literature focused on justice. [14] [15] Another academic who has proposed that wild animals be afforded property rights over their habitats is the British philosopher Steve Cooke. Like Hadley, he utilises an interest-based account of animal rights, but, unlike Hadley, he suggests that sovereignty would be an appropriate tool to protect animals' interest in their habitat if property fails. [13] [19] Other theorists exploring the normative aspects of human relationships with wild animals explicitly deny that they are extending property rights to animals. The US-based ethicist Clare Palmer, for instance, argues for a duty to respect wild animals' space, but claims that arguing for a property right for these animals would be "difficult", and instead bases her account on the fact that human actions can make animals "painful, miserable and vulnerable". [30]

The Canadian theorists Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka are critical of Hadley's proposal to extend property rights to animals, claiming that property rights are insufficient to protect animals' interests. [31] Instead, they argue that animals should be considered sovereign over their territories. [32] They write that

It is one thing to say that a bird has a property right in its nest, or that a wolf has a property right in its den – specific bits of territory used exclusively by one animal family. But the habitat that animals need to survive extends far beyond such specific and exclusive bits of territory – animals often need to fly or roam over vast territories shared by many other animals. Protecting a bird's nest is of little help if the nearby watering holes are polluted, or if tall buildings block its flight path. It's not clear how ideas of property rights can help here. [31]

They also compare the possibility of extending property rights to animals to the approach of European colonists, who were prepared to extend property, but not sovereignty, rights to native peoples, resulting in oppression. [33] Hadley, however, is himself critical of Donaldson and Kymlicka's sovereignty proposal, [34] though the British philosopher Josh Milburn suggests that the proposals may not be as far apart as the authors indicate. [16]

The British political theorist Alasdair Cochrane also questions the extension of property rights to animals in his Animal Rights Without Liberation . Though describing Hadley's proposal as "ingenious", [35] he criticises it on two grounds. First, he questions Hadley's claim of a relationship between property and basic needs, and, second, denies that animal property rights would appease environmentalists, given that they would allow the destruction of environments which do not contain sentient animals. [36] However, in his Sentientist Politics , Cochrane includes animal property rights as part of his critique of Donaldson and Kymlicka's sovereignty model, writing that it "seems perfectly possible to argue, as John Hadley and others have, that wild animals ought to be granted habitat or property rights over their territories". [37] In a book review, Milburn stresses the significance of Hadley's theory, but questions the extent to which the implementation of animal property rights would be desirable without the achievement of other animal rights and the extent to which Hadley's account is genuinely about property rights. [15]

Animal neopragmatism

Having published a number of papers critical of the metaethical and metaphilosophical stances of mainstream animal ethicists in the 2010s, [10] [38] [39] [40] in 2019, Hadley published Animal Neopragmatism. [11] In the book, Hadley sets out a neopragmatist approach to animal ethics. This theory responds to both the "political problem of welfare" and the "philosophical problem of welfare". The former is a perceived difficulty with the democratic legitimacy of animal welfare law, given that folk understanding of welfare stretches beyond the measurable suffering with which a policy approach is concerned. The latter is that, given metatheoretical assumptions of contemporary animal ethicists (especially moral realism), any attempt to extend discussion of welfare beyond feelings is met with the accusation that the subject is being changed: [41] hence Hadley's earlier exploration of the "changing the subject problem". [40] In response to these problems, Hadley outlines his vision of "relational hedonism", according to which a concern for the pain of animals underlies a broader concern that extends beyond a narrow sense of animal welfare, and endorses both experiential pluralism (welfare can be affected by things other than pleasure and pain) and expressivism. [42] The theory of "animal neopragmatism", Hadley argues, is able to overcome metalevel problems in mainstream animal rights theory. [43] [10]

Other research

Hadley has considered the ethics of humans' relationships with wild animals and environments beyond his property rights theory. He argues that there is a duty to aid wild animals in need, and that these duties are essentially no different to humans' duties to aid distant strangers who are severely cognitively impaired. [7] He argues that libertarian property rights, consistent with Robert Nozick's interpretation of the Lockean proviso, should limit the right to destroy human-owned natural environments, [44] and has elsewhere explored libertarian theory's denial of moral powers (including the power to acquire property) to animals. [45]

Hadley has conducted research on animal rights extremism, concluding that the phenomenon is a complex one, and that a full understanding of individual extremists' intentions and targets are necessary to understand the ethical acceptability of extremist acts and whether such acts are appropriately classified as terrorism. [46] He holds that while direct action should be tolerated in liberal democracies, this toleration should not extend to certain campaigning tactics used by extremists, such as threat-making. [47]

With O'Sullivan, Hadley has conducted research on utilitarianism and the relationship between obligations to animals and obligations to needy humans. The scholars argue that there is a conflict in Singer's philosophy between the obligation to aid needy humans and to protect animals, [48] and that Westerners who own pets should, rather than spending large amounts of money extending the lives of their companions, euthanise severely ill animals and instead donate money to aiding those in the developing world. [49]

Hadley has been critical of the views of Tibor Machan [5] and J. Baird Callicott. [50] He has also written on J. M. Coetzee, [51] the ethics of "disenhancing" animals, [52] the ethics of animal testing, [53] the relationship of self-defence theory to abortion and animal ethics, [39] and the ethics of street photography. [54]

Selected publications

Related Research Articles

David Sztybel is a Canadian philosopher specializing in animal ethics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Will Kymlicka</span> Canadian philosopher (born 1962)

William Kymlicka is a Canadian political philosopher best known for his work on multiculturalism and animal ethics. He is currently Professor of Philosophy and Canada Research Chair in Political Philosophy at Queen's University at Kingston, and Recurrent Visiting Professor in the Nationalism Studies program at the Central European University in Budapest, Hungary. For over 20 years, he has lived a vegan lifestyle, and he is married to the Canadian author and animal rights activist Sue Donaldson.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Animal rights</span> Belief that animals have interests that should be considered

Animal rights is the philosophy according to which many or all sentient animals have moral worth independent of their utility to humans, and that their most basic interests—such as avoiding suffering—should be afforded the same consideration as similar interests of human beings. Broadly speaking, and particularly in popular discourse, the term "animal rights" is often used synonymously with "animal protection" or "animal liberation". More narrowly, "animal rights" refers to the idea that many animals have fundamental rights to be treated with respect as individuals—rights to life, liberty, and freedom from torture that may not be overridden by considerations of aggregate welfare.

Paul W. Taylor was an American philosopher best known for his work in the field of environmental ethics.

Ethical extensionism or moral extensionism is a metaethical or metaphilosophical approach in environmental ethics and animal ethics that extends existing ethical theories and concepts to include entities that are traditionally excluded.

Animal ethics is a branch of ethics which examines human-animal relationships, the moral consideration of animals and how nonhuman animals ought to be treated. The subject matter includes animal rights, animal welfare, animal law, speciesism, animal cognition, wildlife conservation, wild animal suffering, the moral status of nonhuman animals, the concept of nonhuman personhood, human exceptionalism, the history of animal use, and theories of justice. Several different theoretical approaches have been proposed to examine this field, in accordance with the different theories currently defended in moral and political philosophy. There is no theory which is completely accepted due to the differing understandings of what is meant by the term ethics; however, there are theories that are more widely accepted by society such as animal rights and utilitarianism.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Elisa Aaltola</span> Finnish philosopher and animal rights activist

Elisa Aaltola is a Finnish philosopher, specialised in animal philosophy, moral psychology and environmental philosophy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wild animal suffering</span> Suffering experienced by animals living outside direct human control

Wild animal suffering is the suffering experienced by nonhuman animals living outside of direct human control, due to harms such as disease, injury, parasitism, starvation and malnutrition, dehydration, weather conditions, natural disasters, and killings by other animals, as well as psychological stress. Some estimates indicate that these individual animals make up the vast majority of animals in existence. An extensive amount of natural suffering has been described as an unavoidable consequence of Darwinian evolution and the pervasiveness of reproductive strategies which favor producing large numbers of offspring, with a low amount of parental care and of which only a small number survive to adulthood, the rest dying in painful ways, has led some to argue that suffering dominates happiness in nature.

<i>An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory</i> 2010 textbook by Alasdair Cochrane

An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory is a 2010 textbook by the British political theorist Alasdair Cochrane. It is the first book in the publisher Palgrave Macmillan's Animal Ethics Series, edited by Andrew Linzey and Priscilla Cohn. Cochrane's book examines five schools of political theory—utilitarianism, liberalism, communitarianism, Marxism and feminism—and their respective relationships with questions concerning animal rights and the political status of (non-human) animals. Cochrane concludes that each tradition has something to offer to these issues, but ultimately presents his own account of interest-based animal rights as preferable to any. His account, though drawing from all examined traditions, builds primarily upon liberalism and utilitarianism.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alasdair Cochrane</span> British political theorist and ethicist

Alasdair Cochrane is a British political theorist and ethicist who is currently Professor of Political Theory in the Department of Politics and International Relations at the University of Sheffield. He is known for his work on animal rights from the perspective of political theory, which is the subject of his two books: An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory and Animal Rights Without Liberation. His third book, Sentientist Politics, was published by Oxford University Press in 2018. He is a founding member of the Centre for Animals and Social Justice, a UK-based think tank focused on furthering the social and political status of nonhuman animals. He joined the Department at Sheffield in 2012, having previously been a faculty member at the Centre for the Study of Human Rights, London School of Economics. Cochrane is a Sentientist. Sentientism is a naturalistic worldview that grants moral consideration to all sentient beings.

<i>Animal Rights Without Liberation</i> 2012 book by British political theorist Alasdair Cochrane

Animal Rights Without Liberation: Applied Ethics and Human Obligations is a 2012 book by the British political theorist Alasdair Cochrane, in which it is argued that animal rights philosophy can be decoupled from animal liberation philosophy by the adoption of the interest-based rights approach. Cochrane, arguing that there is no reason that (nonhuman) animals should be excluded from justice, adopts Joseph Raz's account of interest rights and extends it to include animals. He argues that sentient animals possess a right not to be made to suffer and a right not to be killed, but not a right to freedom. The book's chapters apply Cochrane's account to a number of interactions between humans and animals; first animal experimentation, then animal agriculture, the genetic engineering of animals, the use of animals in entertainment and sport, the relationship of animals to environmental practices and the use of animals in cultural practices.

Sue Donaldson is a Canadian writer and philosopher. She is a research fellow affiliated with the Department of Philosophy at Queen's University, where she is the co-founder of the Animals in Philosophy, Politics, Law and Ethics (APPLE) research cluster.

Siobhan O'Sullivan was an Australian political scientist and political theorist. She was an associate professor in the School of Social Sciences, University of New South Wales. Her research focused, among other things, on animal welfare policy and the welfare state. She was the author of Animals, Equality and Democracy and a coauthor of Getting Welfare to Work and Buying and Selling the Poor. She co-edited Contracting-out Welfare Services and The Political Turn in Animal Ethics. She was the founding host of the regular animal studies podcast Knowing Animals.

<i>Political Animals and Animal Politics</i> Collection of papers about animal ethics

Political Animals and Animal Politics is a 2014 edited collection published by Palgrave Macmillan and edited by the green political theorists Marcel Wissenburg and David Schlosberg. The work addresses the emergence of academic animal ethics informed by political philosophy as opposed to moral philosophy. It was the first edited collection to be published on the topic, and the first book-length attempt to explore the breadth and boundaries of the literature. As well as a substantial introduction by the editors, it features ten sole-authored chapters split over three parts, respectively concerning institutional change for animals, the relationship between animal ethics and ecologism, and real-world laws made for the benefit of animals. The book's contributors were Wissenburg, Schlosberg, Manuel Arias-Maldonado, Chad Flanders, Christie Smith, Clemens Driessen, Simon Otjes, Kurtis Boyer, Per-Anders Svärd, and Mihnea Tanasescu. The focus of their individual chapters varies, but recurring features include discussions of human exceptionalism, exploration of ways that animal issues are or could be present in political discourse, and reflections on the relationship between theory and practice in politics.

Clare Palmer is a British philosopher, theologian and scholar of environmental and religious studies who is currently a professor in the Department of Philosophy at Texas A&M University. She has previously held academic appointments at the University of Greenwich, the University of Stirling, Lancaster University and Washington University in St. Louis, among others. Palmer is known for her work in environmental and animal ethics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Oscar Horta</span> Spanish animal activist and moral philosopher

Óscar Horta Álvarez is a Spanish animal activist and moral philosopher who is currently a professor in the Department of Philosophy and Anthropology at the University of Santiago de Compostela (USC) and one of the co-founders of the organization Animal Ethics. He is known for his work in animal ethics, especially around the problem of wild animal suffering. He has also worked on the concept of speciesism and on the clarification of the arguments for the moral consideration of nonhuman animals. In 2022, Horta published his first book in English, Making a Stand for Animals.

<i>Sentientist Politics</i> 2018 book by Alasdair Cochrane

Sentientist Politics: A Theory of Global Inter-Species Justice is a 2018 book by the English political theorist Alasdair Cochrane, published by Oxford University Press. In the book, Cochrane outlines and defends his political theory of "sentientist cosmopolitan democracy". The approach is sentientist in that it recognises all sentient animals as bearers of rights; cosmopolitan in that it extends cosmopolitan political theory to include animals, rejecting the importance of state borders and endorsing impartiality; and democratic in that it aims to include animals in systems of representative and cosmopolitan democracy. It was the first book to extend cosmopolitan theory to animals, and was a contribution to the "political turn" in animal ethics – animal ethics informed by political philosophy.

Jeffrey Raymond Sebo is an American philosopher. He is clinical associate professor of environmental studies, director of the animal studies MA program, and affiliated professor of bioethics, medical ethics, and philosophy at New York University. In 2022, he published his first sole-authored book, Saving Animals, Saving Ourselves.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Relationship between animal ethics and environmental ethics</span>

The relationship between animal ethics and environmental ethics concerns the differing ethical consideration of individual nonhuman animals—particularly those living in spaces outside of direct human control—and conceptual entities such as species, populations and ecosystems. The intersection of these two fields is a prominent component of vegan discourse.

Catia Faria is a Portuguese moral philosopher and activist for animal rights and feminism. She is assistant professor in Applied Ethics at the Complutense University of Madrid, and is a board member of the UPF-Centre for Animal Ethics. Faria specialises in normative and applied ethics, especially focusing on how they apply to the moral consideration of non-human animals. In 2022, she published her first book, Animal Ethics in the Wild: Wild Animal Suffering and Intervention in Nature.

References

  1. 1 2 3 "John Hadley; Biography". University of Western Sydney. Retrieved 28 May 2016.
  2. 1 2 3 Hadley, Animal Property Rights, p. xi
  3. ↑ "Animal property" (library record). University of Sydney Library. Retrieved 25 May 2016.
  4. 1 2 3 4 Hadley, John (2005). "Nonhuman Animal Property: Reconciling Environmentalism and Animal Rights". Journal of Social Philosophy . 36 (3): 305–15. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9833.2005.00277.x.
  5. 1 2 Hadley, John (2004). "Using and abusing others: A reply to Machan". Journal of Value Inquiry . 38 (3): 411–4. doi:10.1007/s10790-005-5319-6. S2CID   144526223.
  6. ↑ Hadley, John (2005). "Excluding Destruction: Towards an Environmentally Sustainable Libertarian Property Rights Regime". Philosophy in the Contemporary World . 12 (2): 22–9. doi:10.5840/pcw200512217.
  7. 1 2 Hadley, John (2006). "The Duty to Aid Nonhuman Animals in Dire Need". Journal of Applied Philosophy . 23 (4): 445–51. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5930.2006.00358.x.
  8. 1 2 Aaltola, Elisa; John Hadley, eds. (2015). "Notes on Contributors". Animal Ethics and Philosophy. London, United Kingdom: Rowman & Littlefield International. pp. 227–9.
  9. ↑ Aaltola, Elisa; John Hadley (2015). "Introduction: Questioning the Orthodoxy". In Elisa Aaltola; John Hadley (eds.). Animal Ethics and Philosophy. London, United Kingdom: Rowman & Littlefield International. pp. 1–11.
  10. 1 2 3 Hadley, John (2015). "A Metalevel Problem for Animal Rights Theory". In Elisa Aaltola; John Hadley (eds.). Animal Ethics and Philosophy. London, United Kingdom: Rowman & Littlefield International. pp. 15–30.
  11. 1 2 Hadley, John (2019). Animal Neopragmatism. Basingstoke, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan.
  12. ↑ Cochrane, Animal Rights Without Liberation, 163-4
  13. 1 2 Cooke, Steve (2017). "Animal Kingdoms: On Habitat Rights for Wild Animals" (PDF). Environmental Values . 26 (1): 53–72. doi:10.3197/096327117X14809634978555. hdl: 2381/37112 .
  14. 1 2 Cochrane, Alasdair; Siobhan O'Sullivan; Robert Garner (2016). "Animal ethics and the political" (PDF). Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy. 21 (2): 261–277. doi:10.1080/13698230.2016.1194583. S2CID   147783917.
  15. 1 2 3 Milburn, Josh (2017). "John Hadley: Animal Property Rights: A Theory of Habitat Rights for Wild Animals" (PDF). Res Publica . 32 (1): 147–51. doi:10.1007/s11158-016-9345-y. S2CID   254979741.
  16. 1 2 Milburn, Josh (2016). "Nonhuman animals and sovereignty: On Zoopolis, failed states and institutional relationships with free-living animals". In: Andrew Woodhall and Gabriel Garmendia da Trindade, Intervention or Protest. Wilmington, Delaware: Vernon Press.
  17. ↑ Hadley, John (2006). Animal Property: Reconciling Ecological Communitarianism and Species-egalitarian Liberalism (PhD thesis)
  18. ↑ Hadley, Animal Property Rights
  19. 1 2 3 4 5 Hadley, John (2017). "Animal property rights: Justice or conservation?". In Anna Lukasiewicz; Stephen Dovers; Libby Robin; Jennifer McKay; Steven Schilizzi; Sonia Graham (eds.). Natural Resources and Environmental Justice: Australian Perspectives. Clayton, Victoria: CSIRO Publishing. pp. 133–42. ISBN   978-1-4863-0638-1.
  20. ↑ Hadley, John (27 October 2016). "Could giving wild animals property rights help stop their decline?". The Guardian . Retrieved 27 October 2016.
  21. ↑ Hadley, John (12 April 2011). "Want to stop biodiversity loss? Give animals property rights". The Conversation . Retrieved 28 May 2016.
  22. ↑ Hadley, John (31 March 2015). "Is it time wild animals had property rights?". The Ethics Centre . Retrieved 28 May 2016.
  23. ↑ O'Sullivan, Siobhan (10 June 2015). "Property Rights for Nonhuman Animals with John Hadley". Knowing Animals (Podcast). Retrieved 28 May 2016.
  24. ↑ See:
  25. ↑ Hadley, Animal Property Rights, chap. 2
  26. ↑ Hadley, Animal Property Rights, chap. 3
  27. ↑ Hadley, Animal Property Rights, chap. 4
  28. 1 2 Hadley, Animal Property Rights, chap. 5
  29. ↑ Hadley, Animal Property Rights, chap. 6
  30. ↑ Palmer, Clare (2010). Animal Ethics in Context. New York: Columbia University Press. p. 104. JSTOR   10.7312/palm12904.
  31. 1 2 Donaldson and Kymlicka, Zoopolis, 160
  32. ↑ Donaldson and Kymlicka, Zoopolis, chap. 6
  33. ↑ Donaldson and Kymlicka, Zoopolis, 178.
  34. ↑ Hadley, Animal Property Rights, 83–97
  35. ↑ Cochrane, Animal Rights Without Liberation, 163
  36. ↑ Cochrane, Animal Rights Without Liberation, 164
  37. ↑ Cochrane, Alasdair (2018). Sentientist Politics . Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 81.
  38. ↑ Hadley, John (2013). "Liberty and valuing sentient life". Ethics and the Environment. 18 (1): 87–103. doi:10.2979/ethicsenviro.18.1.87. S2CID   145693263.
  39. 1 2 Hadley, John (2009). "Animal Rights and Self-Defense Theory". Journal of Value Inquiry . 43 (2): 165–77. doi:10.1007/s10790-009-9149-9. S2CID   55870285.
  40. 1 2 Hadley, John (2017). "From welfare to rights without changing the subject". Ethical Theory and Moral Practice . 20 (3): 993–1004. doi:10.1007/s10677-017-9856-4. S2CID   149129417.
  41. ↑ Hadley, Animal Neopragmatism, chaps. 2-3.
  42. ↑ Hadley, Animal Neopragmatism, chaps. 4-5.
  43. ↑ Hadley, Animal Neopragmatism, chap. 6.
  44. ↑ Hadley, John (2005b). "Excluding Destruction: Towards an Environmentally Sustainable Libertarian Property Rights Regime". Philosophy in the Contemporary World . 12 (2): 22–9. doi:10.5840/pcw200512217.
  45. ↑ Hadley, John (2017). "Non-autonomous sentient beings and original acquisition". Analysis . 77 (2): 293–99. doi:10.1093/analys/anx074.
  46. ↑ Hadley, John (2009). "Animal Rights Extremism and the Terrorism Question". Journal of Social Philosophy . 40 (3): 363–78. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9833.2009.01457.x.
  47. ↑ Hadley, John (2015). "Animal Rights Advocacy and Legitimate Public Deliberation". Political Studies . 63 (3): 696–712. doi:10.1111/1467-9248.12105. S2CID   145724837.
  48. ↑ O'Sullivan, Siobhan; John Hadley (2009). "Conflict in Peter Singer's Philosophy – Animal Protection versus an Obligation to Give". In Raymond Aaron Younis (ed.). On the Ethical Life: The Philosophy of Peter Singer. Newscastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. pp. 43–56.
  49. ↑ Hadley, John; Siobhan O'Sullivan (2009). "World Poverty, Animal Minds and the Ethics of Veterinary Expenditure". Environmental Values . 18 (3): 361–78. doi:10.3197/096327109X12474739376578.
  50. ↑ Hadley, John (2007). "Critique of Callicott's Biosocial Moral Theory". Ethics and the Environment. 12 (1): 67–78. doi:10.2979/ETE.2007.12.1.67. JSTOR   40339132. S2CID   144075582.
  51. ↑ Hadley, John (2009). "We Cannot Experience Abstractions: Moral Responsibility for 'Eternal Treblinka'". Southerly . 69 (1): 213–22.
  52. ↑ Hadley, John (2012). "Confining 'Disenhanced' Animals". Nanoethics. 6 (1): 41–46. doi:10.1007/s11569-012-0142-6. S2CID   145134202.
  53. ↑ Hadley, John (2012). "Telling it like it is: A proposal to improve transparency in biomedical research". Between the Species . 15 (1): 103–26. doi: 10.15368/bts.2012v15n1.3 .
  54. ↑ Hadley, John (2022). "Street photography ethics". Ethical Theory and Moral Practice . 25: 529–540. doi:10.1007/s10677-022-10316-6.

Cited texts

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.