Animal Liberation : 'n kritiese bespreking vanuit 'n filosofies-veekundige perspektief

[摘要] ENGLISH ABSTRACT:1. The purpose of the first chapter was to give a short introduction to the study. Philosophy is the search for wisdom; to know what a virtuous life is and to know what the morally correct thing to do is. Our lifelong relationship with animals, our attitudes towards them and the ways we treat them are some of the issues that beg philosophers to think. An important question in this regard is if it is morally correct to eat meat or should humans become vegetarian. To answer this question the „Animal Liberation‟ argument, as presented by Peter Singer, was critically analyzed. Does this argument balance our concern for animals with human interests?2. To understand our attitude towards animals, reviews of the Judeo-Christian and philosophical traditions were done in Chapter 2. The different views related to these traditions were also discussed. The Judeo-Christian view is based on the interpretation of Genesis and the idea of human dominion. Philosophical views on the moral status of animals and moral consideration of animals can be classified in three categories namely indirect theories, direct-but-unequal theories and equal moral status theories.3. The nature and extent of the current beef production debate was discussed in Chapter 3. The most important issues were the environmental impact of beef production, socio-economic and human health concerns as well as ethical issues related to the inhumane treatment of animals. It was then concluded that most attacks on beef production were biased and did not take context into account.4. The „Animal Liberation‟ argument was critically analyzed from a logical perspective in Chapter 4, 5 and 6 by using the so called FRISCO approach – with emphasis on the Focus of the argument, Reasons given for the conclusion, the quality of Inferences, the Situation or context of the argument as well as the Clarity of the argument. This argument lacks objectivity and rationality. It includes a number of fallacies, false statements and emotional language. Ideas, concepts and principles were not applied consistently. The argument was therefore found to be unsound.5. In Chapter 7 the conclusion was stated namely that the 'animal liberation approach could not formulate a sound argument for a vegetarian diet. The „Animal Liberation‟ argument was also unable to balance our concern for animals with human interests, in the process compromising human dignity and freedom. However, human attitudes towards animals and the treatment of animals need to be improved.

[发布机构] Stellenbosch University