Abstract

Abstract:

Political theorists advocating the abolition of instrumental uses of groups of animals are divided with respect to how they evaluate welfare reforms. Radical abolitionists maintain that welfare reforms are only dubiously described as moral improvements while pragmatic abolitionists maintain that welfare reforms are moral improvements, even if the conditions they permit are unjust. This article examines Wyckoff's interest model against the case of a Cincinnati coalition's efforts to reform the local food chain. This article argues that the coalition's program of choice is a welfare reform and that the interest model must evaluate the program as a moral improvement. This article concludes that if the interest model is the most appropriate political theory of animal rights, pragmatic abolitionism is philosophically more appropriate than radical abolitionism.

pdf

Additional Information

ISSN
2160-1267
Print ISSN
2156-5414
Pages
pp. 26-38
Launched on MUSE
2018-04-13
Open Access
No
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.