Skip to main content

Abstract

In the introduction, Andrew Woodhall and Gabriel Garmendia da Trindade outline the current ‘political turn’ in interspecies ethics; what it is, the questions that caused it, and those presently involved. They claim that in the political turn most have focused on general positions rather than specific issues. Further such positions have focused on mainstream (e.g. liberal) approaches. The editors then outline how the book offers new approaches to specific issues, presents alternative, non-mainstream positions, and provides important considerations for any position in interspecies ethics, especially those within the political turn, to take into account. Finally, they explain how the contributions relate to and impact the debate and each other and the importance of presenting diverse works by both noted theorists and experienced activists.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Here we refer to ‘the movement’ for nonhuman animals, however a more accurate description would be ‘movements’ as there are numerous groups with varying goals, aims, and strategies, that approach issues facing nonhuman animals; and not all agree. However, as we have argued elsewhere (Woodhall & Garmendia da Trindade, 2016) despite these differences the general focus or concern for nonhuman animals unites all of these groups. It is this loose meaning of those who consider nonhuman animals in order to aid them (in whatever way or to whatever extent) that we refer to by ‘the movement’.

  2. 2.

    See, for instance, Milligan, 2015; Donaldson & Kymlicka, 2011; Woodhall & Garmendia da Trindade, 2016; Garmendia da Trindade & Woodhall, 2016, and the chapters in the present volume for just a few examples.

  3. 3.

    Those who have made an observation regarding a political turn, for instance, include not only ourselves but Milligan, 2015; Wissenburg & Schlosberg, 2014; Wyckoff, 2014; Donaldson & Kymlicka, forthcoming; Kapembwa & Wells, 2016; Meijer, 2016; Tuider 2016; Woodhall, 2016, as well as Gardar Arnason, Josh Milburn, Guy Scotton, Kim Stallwood, and Eva Meijer’s chapters in the present volume. Others have recognised this claim though question whether such a turn is actually a marked difference from previous work in the field, e.g. Garner & O’Sullivan, 2016, and Cochrane, Garner & O’Sullivan, 2016.

For the Reader’s Use

  • Cochrane, A., 2010. An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cochrane, A., 2012. Animal Rights without Liberation: Applied Ethics and Human Obligations. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochrane, A., 2013a. Cosmozoopolis: The Case against Group-Differentiated Animal Rights. Law, Ethics and Philosophy, 1(1), pp. 113–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochrane, A., 2013b. From Human Rights to Sentient Rights. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 16(5), pp. 655–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cochrane, A., Garner, R. & O’Sullivan, S., 2016. Animal Ethics and the Political. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, pp. 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, S., 2014. Perpetual Strangers: Animals and the Cosmopolitan Right. Political Studies, 62(4), pp. 930–944.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, S. & Kymlicka, W., 2011. Zoopolis: A Political Theory of Animal Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, S. & Kymlicka, W., 2013. A Defence of Animal Citizens and Sovereigns. Law, Ethics and Philosophy, 1, pp. 143–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, S. & Kymlicka, W., Forthcoming. Animals in Political Theory. In L. Kalof, ed., The Oxford Handbook of Animal Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garmendia da Trindade, G. & Woodhall, A., 2016. Intervention or Protest: Acting for Nonhuman Animals. Wilmington: Vernon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garner, R., 2013. A Theory of Justice for Animals. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Garner, R. & O’Sullivan, S., 2016. The Political Turn in Animal Ethics. London: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hadley, J., 2015. Animal Property Rights: A Theory of Habitat Rights for Wild Animals. Lanham: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapembwa, J. & Wells, J. 2016. Climate Justice for Wildlife: A Rights-Based Account. In G. Garmendia da Trindade & A. Woodhall, eds., Intervention or Protest: Acting for Nonhuman Animals. Wilmington: Vernon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meijer, E. 2016. Animal Activism and Interspecies Change. In G. Garmendia da Trindade & A. Woodhall, eds., Intervention or Protest: Acting for Nonhuman Animals. Wilmington: Vernon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milligan, T., 2015. The Political Turn in Animal Rights. Politics and Animals, 1, pp. 6–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M., 2006. Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Sullivan, S., 2011. Animals, Equality and Democracy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K., 2012. Governing Animals: Animal Welfare and the Liberal State. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tuider, J. 2016. Putting Nonhuman Animals First: A Call for a Pragmatic and Nonideal Turn in Normative Theorising. In G. Garmendia da Trindade & A. Woodhall, eds., Intervention or Protest: Acting for Nonhuman Animals. Wilmington: Vernon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wissenberg, M. & Schlosberg, D., eds., 2014. Political Animals and Animal Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodhall, A. 2016. Anthropocentrism and the Issues Facing Nonhuman Animals. In D. Moorehead, ed., Animals in Human Society: Amazing Creatures who Share our Planet. Lanham: University Press of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodhall, A. & Garmendia da Trindade, G., 2016. Saving Nonhumans: Drawing the Threads of a Movement Together. In G. Garmendia da Trindade & A. Woodhall, eds., Intervention or Protest: Acting for Nonhuman Animals. Wilmington: Vernon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyckoff, J., 2014. Toward Justice for Animals. Journal of Social Philosophy, 45(4), pp. 539–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew Woodhall .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Woodhall, A., Garmendia da Trindade, G. (2017). Introduction. In: Woodhall, A., Garmendia da Trindade, G. (eds) Ethical and Political Approaches to Nonhuman Animal Issues. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54549-3_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics