Morality In Our Age: Animals & Ethics

by Rem B. Edwards, Robert Guillaume (Narrator)

For much of history, philosophers and religious thinkers have believed there are absolute differences between humans and all other living things. Usually, only humans have been thought capable and deserving of moral standing (either as moral agents, who are capable of acting morally, or as moral patients, who are owed moral duties). But this view is now forcefully challenged, with many disputes or debates about the tenets that underlie in, including:

The Bible says so. Humans have immortal souls, and animals or plants do not. Humans alone are rational. Only humans can speak a language. Only humans have desires and interests. Humans alone are fully sentient (i.e. can experience pleasure or pain. Only humans are self-aware or self-conscious; some say only humans are conscious at all. Humans alone are moral agents (i.e. can act morally). Humans can enter into social contracts or agreements, white animals or plants cannot.

Animal advocates argue that many animals do have some of these traits, or that the traits they don't have are irrelevant for determining moral standing. Recent discoveries also indicate that humans have much in common with at least some of the animals. This has led to much rethinking, and to a powerful critique of our relationships with other living creatures.

Genres: Philosophy, Psychology, Animals, Audiobook

Audio CD

First published July 15, 2006

Reviews

[Alex Shrugged · Rating 1 out of 5]

You gotta be kidding me. I understand why they quote Peter Singer so much. Without him they would have no argument at all. As it is, killing infants less than a year old because they are not yet human is, in my mind, inhuman. And when the author quoted Captain Kirk in a poor imitation of William Shatner's voice, I just had to stop.

This is not a serious audiobook. It is crap and a waste of my time. I got through about 85% of it. That's enough.

I doubt I will be listening to this audiobook again.

[J. · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found this audible book to be a fair, well-balanced presentation of the issues around the subject of animal rights, and the arguments for and against the extension of various levels of rights to animals.

[Steven · Rating 2 out of 5]

The morality ones just seem bad in general...

[AttackGirl · Rating 5 out of 5]

They did not discuss Balam’s donkey.

[James Johnson · Rating 3 out of 5]

There were certainly aspects to the human treatment of animals that I hadn't considered so, this book was enlightening in that regard. But the treatment of the subject was a little stuffy and even felt preachy. All in all, I think the book presented a fair case.