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 Case for Animal Rights, Tom Regan posits the following hypothetical: five survivors-four normal adults and one normal dog-are on a lifeboat. There is room in the boat only for four, and one of the occupants must be thrown overboard. Regan maintains that his rights theory provides an answer to the problem. Although death is a harm for the dog, Regan argues, death would be a qualitatively greater loss, and, accordingly, a greater harm, for any of the humans: "To throw anyone of the humans overboard, to face certain death, would be to make that individual worse-off (Le., would cause tlult individual a greater harm) than the harm that would be done to the dog if the animal was thrown overboard.") It would, on Regan's view, be morally obligatory to kill the dog. Further, Regan claims even if the choice is between a million dogs and one person, it would still be obligatory under rights theory to throw the dogs overboard. This notion of comparable harm is not unique to Regan although different theorists use it in different ways. Other theorists who subscribe to some version of animal rights share Regan's view. For example, Joel

Comparable Harm and Equal Inherent Value: The Problem of Dog in the Lifeboat