English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In the second paragraph of"Domesticated and Then Some," Professor Duran characterizes her topic as "the question of the moral significance, from the standpoint of animal rights, of whether or not a species is domesticated." Her question, so stated, is crucially ambiguous. Is it Ql) What can be said about the moral significance of an individual animal in virtue of its being a member of a domesticated species or breed ralher than a wild species or subspecies?1 Or is it 02) What moral significance do domesticated species or breeds have in virtue of their being domesticated rather than wild? Duran's reference to "the standpoint of animal rights" in her topic sentence suggests that she is concerned with the former question, since, as she later admits, the animal rights literature is singularly individualistic.2 On the other hand, Duran asserts that she and Tom Regan (the foremost animal rights theorist, and an adamantly individualistic one)

Species, Individuals, and Domestication: A commentary on Jane Duran's "Domesticated and Then Some"