Rights of Women - Philosophical Ethics - quality Between Human Beings
Domestic animals such as horses, cats and dogs are common in most households of people who fight for human rights. Surprisingly, such people treat the animals badly and deny them the basic principle of equality that the same recognize should be extended to all members of their own species. The crucial idea in the discussion lies in the sense that people should extend to other species the basic principle of equality that most of them recognize. The writing attracts a discussion to parody the case for women's rights. Such a heating topic leads to a thesis stating that the basic principle of equality is equality of consideration, and equal consideration for different beings may lead to different treatment and different rights.
In 1972, Mary Wollstonecraft published her Vindication of the Rights of Women, which attracted several analysts who regarded her ideas as absurd. As a reaction, Thomas Taylor produced an anonymous publication entitled A Vindication of the Rights of Brutes. According to Wollstonecraft people have used the idea of The right of animals to parody the case for women's right. Well, Thomas tries to refute Wollstonecraft's reasonings: equality between men and women cannot validly be extended to nonhuman animals. For instance, a woman has the right to cast a vote because she can make a rational decision as a man. On the other hand, domestic animals such as cats cannot understand the significant of voting, which means they hardly have the right to vote.
[...] New York: Harcourt, Brace. Brownmiller, S. (1975). Against our will: Men, women and rape. New York: Simon and Schuster. Higginson, T. W. (1888). Women and men. New York: Harper. [...]
[...] Philosophical Ethics: Equality Between Human Beings (women and men) and Animal Domestic animals such as horses, cats and dogs are common in most households of people who fight for human rights. Surprisingly, such people treat the animals badly and deny them the basic principle of equality that the same recognize should be extended to all members of their own species. The crucial idea in the discussion lies in the sense that people should extend to other species the basic principle of equality that most of them recognize. [...]
[...] Just like other writers, Benn thinks only of “equal consideration of human interests.” Such statements by Benn are correct, but raises questions as should there be any fundamental inequality of claims between a dog and a human imbecile.” The point is that Benn was defending a rigid division in the amount of consideration due to members of different species, despite the admitted cases of overlap. Bibliography Tannen, D. (1990). You just don't understand: Women and men in conversation. New York, NY: Morrow. Scheinfeld, A. (1944). Women and men. [...]
[...] Well, since people recognize this obvious fact, it is not a barrier towards “extending the basic principle of equality to nonhuman animals.” Women and men are different, which give rise to different rights. The same case applies to the rights of nonhumans. For instance, the supporters of Women's Liberation and “feminists hold that women have the right to an abortion on request. It does not follow that since the same people campaign for equality between men and women they must support the right of men to have abortions.” This is meaningless because men cannot have abortions. [...]
using our reader.