dc.contributor.author |
Donaldson, Sue |
dc.contributor.author |
Kymlicka, Will |
dc.date.accessioned |
2015-07-28T06:56:35Z |
dc.date.available |
2015-07-28T06:56:35Z |
dc.date.issued |
2013 |
dc.identifier |
http://www.raco.cat/index.php/LEAP/article/view/294786 |
dc.identifier.uri |
http://hdl.handle.net/10230/24660 |
dc.description.abstract |
In their commentaries on Zoopolis, Alasdair Cochrane and Oscar Horta raise several challenges to our argument for a “political theory of animal rights”, and to the specific models of animal citizenship and animal sovereignty we offer. In this reply, we focus on three key issues: 1) the need for a groupdifferentiated theory of animal rights that takes seriously ideas of membership in bounded communities, as against more “cosmopolitan” or “cosmo- cosmopolitan” or “cosmo- cosmopolitan” or “cosmo- ” or “cosmo- or “cosmozoopolis” alternatives that minimize the moral significance of boundaries and membership; 2) the challenge of defining the nature and scope of wild animal sovereignty; and 3) the problem of policing nature and humanitarian intervention to reduce suffering in the wild. |
dc.format |
application/pdf |
dc.language.iso |
eng |
dc.publisher |
Law, Ethics and Philosophy |
dc.publisher |
Law, Ethics and Philosophy |
dc.relation.haspart |
http://www.raco.cat/index.php/LEAP/article/view/294786/383319 |
dc.rights.uri |
The authors transfers a non exclusive rights of distribution, public communication and reproduction of his or her work for publication in Law, Ethics and Philosophy (LEAP) and inclusion in databases in which the journal is indexed. |
dc.source.uri |
Law, Ethics and Philosophy; 2013: Núm.: 1; p. 143-160 |
dc.source.uri |
Law, Ethics and Philosophy; 2013: Núm.: 1; p. 143-160 |
dc.title |
A Defense of animal citizens and sovereigns |
dc.type |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
dc.type |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
dc.date.modified |
2015-06-22T09:37:00Z |