Literature Review

Questions related to the protection of animals can be approached from the perspectives of animal welfare or animal rights. The legal status of animals is affected by their rote as an object of property law. In the Finnish legislative culture, animal welfare has been considered to be a protected legal good and animals are protected legal objects. On the other hand, in the European perspective the animal welfare can be seen as a public good that is protected by the public authorities. Animal rights can also be estimated from the perspective of legal subjectivity. Because an animal cannot defend itself, it would need the power of speech by humans to fulfil its legal subjectivity. The intrinsic value of animals and animal rights have been the subject of wide discussion. Our current basic rights system is based on human rights, but it has been suggested that animals may also have some basic rights.

With the approval of the Chamber of Deputies, the constitutional reform that provides for the amendment of article 9 and article 41 of the Italian Constitution (const. law n. 1/2022) represents an important turning point in terms of protection of the environment, ecosystems, and animal rights. Although this achievement sets an important benchmark for environmental constitutionalism, the peculiarities of the modifications made to the Constitution and their impact on the legislature's decision-making process based on the established legal reserve need to be investigated. The following paper proposes to explore the protection of animals integrated into the fundamental principles of the constitutional text, through a comparison of the amendments regarding articles 9 and 41 of the Italian Constitution with those made in 1992 through article 120 in the Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation, the first country in the world to constitutionalise the principle of the dignity of animals. Through the comparative study of the two legal systems mentioned, the concepts of 'dignity', 'integrity' and 'creature' will be examined to outline the material applicability in the short-term, and the possible long-term effects which can be reasonably expected as a consequence of the amendments to the Italian constitutional text. In this regard, a comparison is proposed by visualising the results obtained in the years following the approval of article 120 of the Swiss Constitution. Through the comparative study of the two constitutional texts with respect to the environmental issue and the legal status of animals and their rights, the objective seeks to investigate how climate change impacts legal systems and in what manner the law enforcement process can represent an efficient vehicle through which to address climate and environmental challenges.

Animals and Business Ethics is an edited book that applies business ethical theory to nonhuman animals. It explores the ethics of commodifying animals in a business context, how stakeholder and social contract theories relate to animals, how business can be regulated to improve conditions for animals, how to create more humane jobs for humans and animals, and the linkages between human and animal well-being, in the context of human workers and consumers who interact with animals in business. Business ethics literature has underrepresented animals, although this is beginning to change. This book is an introduction to how business ethics theory can be applied, through a range of theoretical chapters and case studies. Animals and Business Ethics is a valuable contribution to the literature, which opens space for additional research.

Animal ethicists have worried that hoping for the success of the animal rights movement is epistemically irrational because it contradicts our best evidence and practically irrational because it makes animal rights advocates complacent. Against these worries, this article defends the claim that animal rights advocates can rationally hope for the success of their movement despite grim prospects. To this end, the article draws on Philip Pettit's (2004) account of hope to articulate the novel notion of “careful substantial hope.” Hope in this sense is a cognitive strategy of thinking as if movement success is likely because the right strategies and tactics will be employed. The article concludes with suggestions for how philosophers can encourage this kind of hope.

The ethical treatment of animals has been a topic of great interest throughout human history, with religious teachings often guiding societal attitudes towards animals. This study offers a comparative analysis of animal rights within the frameworks of Islam and Judaism. Both religions, with their deeply rooted traditions and extensive canonical texts, provide insights into humans' moral and practical responsibilities towards animals. In Islam, the Quran and Hadiths frequently emphasize the importance of kindness to animals. These texts highlight the notion that animals are communities unto themselves and that they are a significant part of God's creation. This leads to various teachings and prophetic traditions that guide Muslims in ensuring the welfare of animals, from their treatment in daily life to their humane handling in the context of food preparation. In Judaism, the Torah, Talmud, and other rabbinical writings echo many of these sentiments. The Jewish principle of (the prohibition against causing unnecessary suffering to animals) underscores the ethical responsibilities that Jews have towards animals. This study serves as a foundation for further exploration of the topic. It encourages the bridging of gaps between different religious communities, promoting shared values and the collaborative enhancement of animal welfare standards globally.

Aubropocentrism has been identified as a root cause of nonbuman animal and intra-oppressions and the enuroealcusiVegamsm has been celchrated as philosopby and practice capable of undermining anthropocentrism, yet the anti-anthropo-centric capacity of vegan advocacy is understudied. The current research provides a criticalamplesis of the outive adiscacy discourse of three promment vegan organisations-Vegan Society, PETA, and Viva! - elucidating areas of antbropocentric reinforcement and subversion in correspondence to tbe conceptual characteristio of anthropocentrism buman-centred narcissism and exceptionalism, the perceived human/animal dichotomy, buman-centred narcissism and exceptionalism, the perceived human/animal dichotomy, and a corresponding moral hierarchy that exalts particalar understandings of the 'humanto the detriment of all considered other-than (Calarco 2014). Given the interconnectednessnonbuman and buman oppressions and importance of decentring the anthropocentric conception of the "buman' the intersectional strengths and sbortcomings of the organisa-tons' vegan advocucy is additionally considered, with many areas of needed improvement being highlighted. The article contributes to research on vegan/nonhuman animal rights

There is currently a dispute in this country between animal rights activists and agriculturists concerning state-enacted legislation, commonly called an ag-gag law, which holds individuals either criminally or civilly liable for conducting undercover investigations at agricultural operations in order to expose animal abuse. While these ag-gag laws in many ways help protect animal welfare, they have continuously struggled to maintain their constitutionality under First Amendment legal challenges. Therefore, this Note argues that the better route to protect animal welfare and promote transparency in agriculture would be to enact arm protections statutes.

Human-wildlife coexistence is a very complex issue that involves conflicts that need to be analysed and managed to minimise the negative impact on biodiversity and humankind. Human-wildlife conflicts entail ethical issues related to stakeholders’ values, and the ethical aspects are particularly important when conflicts concern the reintroduction and management of endangered large carnivores in human landscapes. Trentino’s current situation concerning brown bears is an exemplary scenario. This study thus investigated ethically relevant aspects of the case JJ4 using media content analysis. Indeed, media information has a huge impact on the general public’s opinion. We collected reports using Google News and used the statements they reported to fill an ethical matrix. The ethical matrix is a tool which can consider the point of view of relevant stakeholders following three general ethical principles: well-being, autonomy and fairness. In this study we filled the ethical matrix only through a bottom-up methodology in which the value demands report the interests, values, and needs directly expressed in mass media by representatives of different stakeholders. The preliminary results show that the viewpoints of some stakeholders are more frequently reported compared to others, especially politicians and animal rights activists. There is a lack of information about residents, hunters and farmers, even if they are directly involved in the coexistence with bears. This information gap risks to convey people’s perspectives. To support a more equal decision-making process in brown bear conservation a top-down approach is necessary to complete the ethical matrix in order to map all the interests and values involved.

Non-human animals in the field of Dark Tourism (DT) is an area of recent discussion. While DT initially described tourist sites of human suffering and death, this field undoubtedly encompasses nonhuman malaise. Some activities are unmistakably DT experiences, like bullfighting and hunting, whereas zoos and aquaria are considered more ambiguous. Using Fennel's post-humanist prototype, animals in zoos and aquaria are highlighted as examples of dark tourism objects who endure pain, suffering and thwarted flourishing. It is argued that animal-based DT activities arise from anthropocentric domination narratives of human exceptionalism and entitlement. In the captive context, nature and nonhumans are conceptualized as “other”, extending the dominant, progress-driven misapprehensions of human-nature separation, allowing people to deny the true and far-reaching effects of human impacts on nonhumans and the earth. Dark tourists seek the artificial manifestations of the captive utopia of zoos and aquaria and the collusion provided, permitting the dismissal of animal rights, biodiversity loss and climate change. An alternative perspective of deep justice is offered, where the wellbeing, interests and rights of animals are inherently valued. Embracing this perspective would allow the rejection of captive-animal dark tourism sites such as zoos and aquaria and for the flourishing of all beings to be to be upheld.

Over 69% of the world's wildlife has been lost between 1970 and 2018. Catastrophic events like the Australian bushfires, the Amazon rainforest fires, and the ongoing floods in the United States have led to the deaths of several billion animals. Ongoing apocalyptic floods have put one-third of Pakistan underwater and led to the deaths of over a million livestock ani-mals. Climate change, human rights, and animal rights have become so intertwined that all life--including human, nonhuman, and plant life-is onthe brink of extinction.

Animal maltreatment became a subject of psychiatric research in the United States in the 1960s. At that time, a psychiatrist named John Macdonald identified a triad of childhood behaviors—animal cruelty, enuresis, and fire-setting—that he proposed were associated with interpersonal violence among sadistic psychiatric inpatients. Though it received much research follow-up, Macdonald's triad did not survive the test of time as a legitimate marker of violence risk. Childhood animal cruelty, however, has continued to receive research interest over the intervening decades, specifically its relationship to adult interpersonal violence. The Link, as it is commonly called, suggests that animal maltreatment might be predictive of various types of interpersonal offending. Much of the research supporting the Link is of poor methodological quality and limited generalizability to the population at large. Despite this, modern efforts to reform animal maltreatment law rely on the Link to motivate legislators. This article reviews the research that has formed the base for the hypothesized Link, focusing on intentional acts of animal cruelty and interpersonal violence; considers the historical bases for the regulation of animal treatment and the use of the Link to push for legislative change; and examines the possible unintended consequences of doing so.

Martha Minow’s concept of dilemmas of difference, widely influential in feminist philosophy of law, exposes how hidden patriarchal norms are reified in legal institutions and harmfully categorize oppressed groups. Though Minow primarily focuses on how such dilemmas impact interpersonal relationships, I argue that her work can be applied to the relationship between nonhuman animals, human beings, and our legal institutions. Just as certain patriarchal norms establish categories that mask the true roots of difference and thus make it more difficult for non-dominant groups to obtain justice, so too do implicit anthropocentric norms mark out nonhuman animals as different from human beings and similarly disadvantage them in the eyes of the law. As such, I utilize the conceptual frameworks of ecofeminist philosophy to expose the presently concealed anthropocentrism that undermines just legal standing for nonhuman animals. In doing so, I make a strong claim for reforming our legal institutions in order to resolve the unique dilemma of difference which nonhuman animals face.