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

Animal suffering is an obvious consequence of different animal experiments and factory farming. Everybody can observe the terrible online data and images on this issue. From the birth of bioethics in the 1960s, it has become clear that animals should get more clear-cut defence than human beings since they cannot protest and give informed consent. The Animal Rights Movement became stronger when Peter Singer published Animal Liberation in 1975. Tom Regan went further than Singer with his speciesism when he claimed that animals are “subject of a life” and they have moral rights. This chapter will show, in the light of modern ethology, that these views (Singer and Regan) cannot be founded philosophically, and that we should return to Immanuel Kant’s standpoint. It is good enough to determine our moral relationship to animals, and above all, it is a provable standpoint.

The Moral Relationship of the Human and the Non-Human Animals in Light of Ethology