umu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Varför frigörelse för djuren?: En jämförande analys mellan Lewis Gompertz och Peter Singers djuretiska tänkande
Umeå University, Faculty of Arts, Department of historical, philosophical and religious studies.
2017 (Swedish)Independent thesis Basic level (degree of Bachelor), 10 credits / 15 HE creditsStudent thesisAlternative title
Why liberation for the animals? : A comparative analysis of the animal ethical thoughts of Lewis Gompertz and Peter Singer (English)
Abstract [en]

This study examines differences and similarities in how two animal ethicists living in different times have argued for a liberation of the animals, the basis for the study is Lewis Gompertz Moral Inquiries: On the Situation of Man and of Brutes (1824) and Peter Singers Animal Liberation (1975). The analysis has been conducted with a historical perspective where close reading and contextualization have been used to further understand both the sources and the authors. The investigation is limited to four themes: animal's ability to experience, to kill animals, using animals and products of animals, and finally the idea of equality.

The study concludes that there are significant similarities between the arguments Gompertz and Singer use, and that their ideas are rooted in a view of equality where the ability to suffer and have needs should be fundamental for our moral caring towards other creatures. A significant difference between the authors is their relationship to reason, where Gompertz highlights the animals' ability to reason as a cause to treat them well while Singer dismisses the idea that such abilities are of any interest for our moral considerations. The study also points out that the differences in the authors' conclusions and arguments can be understood on the basis of the scientific and intellectual context they operate in, where Gompertz can be described as an enlightenment philosopher with a strong belief in the developable reason within creatures, while the modern-day philosopher Singer rather sees reason as excluding, not only of animals but also of human beings. For animals to be liberated from man's oppression, both writers argue that it is necessary for man to eat a vegetarian diet.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2017. , p. 36
Keywords [sv]
Peter Singer, Lewis Gompertz, veganism, vegetarianism, djuretik, djurrätt, jämlikhet
National Category
History of Ideas
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-140172OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-140172DiVA, id: diva2:1146236
Subject / course
History of ideas
Supervisors
Examiners
Available from: 2017-10-02 Created: 2017-10-02

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(232 kB)132 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 232 kBChecksum SHA-512
18ce3a513bb249326800a62d342f3e05d197c210d97bb51bb0822096c6e805a2ba35345017a19c9ef4b316470d7562fc0e1b3672f32e6f35607390a2d979660d
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

By organisation
Department of historical, philosophical and religious studies
History of Ideas

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 132 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 233 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf