Abstract
Abstract
According to Alasdair Cochrane, liberty can have value for most animals only because it allows them to obtain other desirable things, such as well-being. With this he concludes that humans can continue to use other animals as long as they treat them well. In this article, I reject this conclusion by arguing against the positive conception of liberty in favor of its negative or republican conception. I suggest that it is sufficient for a being to be capable of agency in order to have an interest in liberty, which deserves to be protected by the right to be free.
Publisher
University of Illinois Press
Subject
General Earth and Planetary Sciences,General Environmental Science
Cited by
11 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. The Value and Ethical Status of Zoos;Veterinary Medicine and Science;2024-04-30
2. The Legacy of Zoos? Moral Reasons against Considering Zoos as Heritage;Tourism, Heritage and Commodification of Non-human Animals;2023-12-21
3. A democratic argument for animal uplifting;Inquiry;2023-08-18
4. Wild Animal Ethics: A Freedom-Based Approach;Ethics, Policy & Environment;2023-04-17
5. Animals: Vulnerable Beings?;The Moral Implications of Human and Animal Vulnerability;2023