Skip to main content

Animals and Political Standing

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

In this chapter, I defend the claim that if nonhuman animals have certain basic moral rights, then this requires that we extend to them what I call “full political standing.” Full political standing includes legal rights, legal standing so others can bring legal suits on behalf of animals, and some form of institutionalized political representation. I argue that only if we incorporate other animals into our legal and political institutions in these ways will humans be able to effectively protect and uphold their basic moral rights. I finish by considering a few objections to extending political inclusion to other animals in these ways.

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

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   249.99
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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    DeGrazia, David, Taking Animals Seriously: Mental Life and Moral Status (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996).

  2. 2.

    Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka, “Animals in Political Theory” in The Oxford Handbook of Animal Studies, ed. Linda Kalof (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017), pp. 43–64.

  3. 3.

    Chris Stone, “Should Trees Have Standing?—Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects”, Southern California Law Review 45 (1972), p. 458.

  4. 4.

    Cass Sunstein, “Can Animals Sue?” in Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions, eds. Cass Sunstein and Martha Nussbaum (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), p. 261.

  5. 5.

    Reece v Edmonton (City) (2011) ABCA 238 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/fmjhh, p. 21.

  6. 6.

    See New York City Audubon Society, Bird-Safe Building Guidelines (2015), p. 37. Available at: http://www.nycaudubon.org/images/pdf/Bird-Friendly_Building_Design_2015.pdf.

  7. 7.

    One exception to this are jurisdictions with Ombudsmen dedicated to the issue of child welfare.

  8. 8.

    See Siobhan O’Sullivan, Animals, Equality, and Democracy (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011).

  9. 9.

    John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971), p. 505.

  10. 10.

    Harris Poll #41, July 16, 2015. Retrieved from http://www.theharrispoll.com/health-and-life/Pets-are-Members-of-the-Family.html.

  11. 11.

    See Robert Garner and Siobhan O’Sullivan, eds., The Political Turn in Animal Ethics, (New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 2016).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Hooley, D. (2018). Animals and Political Standing. In: Boonin, D. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Philosophy and Public Policy. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93907-0_23

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics