Alasdair Cochrane – författare

There is now widespread agreement that many non-human animals are sentient, and that this fact has important moral and political implications. Indeed, most are in agreement that animal sentience ought to constrain the actions of political institutions, limiting the harms that can be perpetrated against animals. The primary aim of this book is to show that the political implications of animal sentience go even further than this. For this book argues that sentienceestablishes a moral equality and a shared set of rights amongst those creatures who possess it. Crucially, this worth and these rights create a duty on moral agents to establish and maintain a political order dedicated to their interests.This book is devoted to sketching what this ''sentientist politics'' might look like. It argues in favour of a '' sentientist cosmopolitan democracy'': a global political system made up of overlapping local, national, regional and global communities comprised of human and non-human members who exist within shared ''communities of fate''. Furthermore, the institutions of those communities should be democratic - that is to say, participative, deliberative and representative. Finally,those institutions should include dedicated representatives of non-human animals whose job should be to translate the interests of animals into deliberations over what is in the public good for their communities.

There is now widespread agreement that many non-human animals are sentient, and that this fact has important moral and political implications. Indeed, most are in agreement that animal sentience ought to constrain the actions of political institutions, limiting the harms that can be perpetrated against animals. The primary aim of this book is to show that the political implications of animal sentience go even further than this. For this book argues that sentienceestablishes a moral equality and a shared set of rights amongst those creatures who possess it. Crucially, this worth and these rights create a duty on moral agents to establish and maintain a political order dedicated to their interests.This book is devoted to sketching what this ''sentientist politics'' might look like. It argues in favour of a '' sentientist cosmopolitan democracy'': a global political system made up of overlapping local, national, regional and global communities comprised of human and non-human members who exist within shared ''communities of fate''. Furthermore, the institutions of those communities should be democratic - that is to say, participative, deliberative and representative. Finally,those institutions should include dedicated representatives of non-human animals whose job should be to translate the interests of animals into deliberations over what is in the public good for their communities.

There is now widespread agreement that many non-human animals are sentient, and that this fact has important moral and political implications. Indeed, most are in agreement that animal sentience ought to constrain the actions of political institutions, limiting the harms that can be perpetrated against animals. The primary aim of this book is to show that the political implications of animal sentience go even further than this. For this book argues that sentience establishes a moral equality and a shared set of rights amongst those creatures who possess it. Crucially, this worth and these rights create a duty on moral agents to establish and maintain a political order dedicated to their interests. This book is devoted to sketching what this 'sentientist politics' might look like. It argues in favour of a ' sentientist cosmopolitan democracy': a global political system made up of overlapping local, national, regional and global communities comprised of human and non-human members who exist within shared 'communities of fate'. Furthermore, the institutions of those communities should be democratic - that is to say, participative, deliberative and representative. Finally, those institutions should include dedicated representatives of non-human animals whose job should be to translate the interests of animals into deliberations over what is in the public good for their communities.

'Solidarity' has received considerable scholarly attention and is central in many social justice movements. It is striking, then, that solidarity's relevance, meaning and practical implications in the context of animal protection have not been systematically explored. This is particularly surprising given the recent so-called 'political turn' in animal ethics. Work in the political turn accepts claims about the moral status of animals and people's personal obligations towards them, but advances the field in at least two ways. First, thinkers emphasize that mutually beneficial human-animal relations cannot rely solely on personal transformation, but also require institutional transformation. Secondly, scholars claim that to meaningfully improve the lives of animals, we must not only change our political systems, but better understand various animals' own perspectives and political agency to feed into 'more-than-human politics'.But while much work in this political turn has been done on concepts like 'justice', 'agency', 'representation', etc., only very few animal scholars have talked about 'solidarity'. And those that have, have done so only in very specific contexts and frameworks. This lack of attention is also mirrored also within animal activism, where those few campaigners who have employed the term have done so only in a very loose way.This edited collection brings together the leading thinkers in the fields of animal ethics, politics, social philosophy, world religions, and the law to explore this lacuna and thus provide the first book length treatment of solidarity between the species.

''Solidarity'' has received considerable scholarly attention and is central in many social justice movements. It is striking, then, that solidarity''s relevance, meaning and practical implications in the context of animal protection have not been systematically explored. This is particularly surprising given the recent so-called ''political turn'' in animal ethics. Work in the political turn accepts claims about the moral status of animals and people''s personal obligations towards them, but advances the field in at least two ways. First, thinkers emphasize that mutually beneficial human-animal relations cannot rely solely on personal transformation, but also require institutional transformation. Secondly, scholars claim that to meaningfully improve the lives of animals, we must not only change our political systems, but better understand various animals'' own perspectives and political agency to feed into ''more-than-human politics''.But while much work in this political turn has been done on concepts like ''justice'', ''agency'', ''representation'', etc., only very few animal scholars have talked about ''solidarity''. And those that have, have done so only in very specific contexts and frameworks. This lack of attention is also mirrored also within animal activism, where those few campaigners who have employed the term have done so only in a very loose way.This edited collection brings together the leading thinkers in the fields of animal ethics, politics, social philosophy, world religions, and the law to explore this lacuna and thus provide the first book length treatment of solidarity between the species.

''Solidarity'' has received considerable scholarly attention and is central in many social justice movements. It is striking, then, that solidarity''s relevance, meaning and practical implications in the context of animal protection have not been systematically explored. This is particularly surprising given the recent so-called ''political turn'' in animal ethics. Work in the political turn accepts claims about the moral status of animals and people''s personal obligations towards them, but advances the field in at least two ways. First, thinkers emphasize that mutually beneficial human-animal relations cannot rely solely on personal transformation, but also require institutional transformation. Secondly, scholars claim that to meaningfully improve the lives of animals, we must not only change our political systems, but better understand various animals'' own perspectives and political agency to feed into ''more-than-human politics''.But while much work in this political turn has been done on concepts like ''justice'', ''agency'', ''representation'', etc., only very few animal scholars have talked about ''solidarity''. And those that have, have done so only in very specific contexts and frameworks. This lack of attention is also mirrored also within animal activism, where those few campaigners who have employed the term have done so only in a very loose way.This edited collection brings together the leading thinkers in the fields of animal ethics, politics, social philosophy, world religions, and the law to explore this lacuna and thus provide the first book length treatment of solidarity between the species.

Structured around the five most important schools within contemporary political theory: liberalism, utilitarianism, communitarianism, Marxism and feminism, this is the first introductory level text to offer an accessible overview on the status of animals in contemporary political theory.

Structured around the five most important schools within contemporary political theory: liberalism, utilitarianism, communitarianism, Marxism and feminism, this is the first introductory level text to offer an accessible overview on the status of animals in contemporary political theory.

Structured around the five most important schools within contemporary political theory: liberalism, utilitarianism, communitarianism, Marxism and feminism, this is the first introductory level text to offer an accessible overview on the status of animals in contemporary political theory.

Alasdair Cochrane introduces an entirely new theory of animal rights grounded in their interests as sentient beings. He then applies this theory to different and underexplored policy areas, such as genetic engineering, pet-keeping, indigenous hunting, and religious slaughter. In contrast to other proponents of animal rights, Cochrane claims that because most sentient animals are not autonomous agents, they have no intrinsic interest in liberty. As such, he argues that our obligations to animals lie in ending practices that cause their suffering and death and do not require the liberation of animals. Cochrane's "interest-based rights approach" weighs the interests of animals to determine which is sufficient to impose strict duties on humans. In so doing, Cochrane acknowledges that sentient animals have a clear and discernable right not to be made to suffer and not to be killed, but he argues that they do not have a prima facie right to liberty. Because most animals possess no interest in leading freely chosen lives, humans have no moral obligation to liberate them.Moving beyond theory to the practical aspects of applied ethics, this pragmatic volume provides much-needed perspective on the realities and responsibilities of the human-animal relationship.

All political communities must make decisions about how to regulate the treatment of animals. Most states currently protect animals through outlawing the infliction of ‘unnecessary suffering’. But do animals’ rights end there? In this book, Alasdair Cochrane argues that states must go much further. Animals have rights to be protected not only from the cruelty of individuals, but also from those structures and institutions which routinely (and, in some cases, necessarily) cause them harm, such as industrialised animal agriculture.  But even that isn’t adequate. In order to ensure that their interests are taken seriously, it is imperative that we represent their interests throughout the political process – they require not only rights to protection, but also to democratic membership.  Cochrane’s important intervention in this controversial debate will be essential reading for anyone interested in the intersection of political theory and animal rights.

All political communities must make decisions about how to regulate the treatment of animals. Most states currently protect animals through outlawing the infliction of ‘unnecessary suffering’. But do animals’ rights end there? In this book, Alasdair Cochrane argues that states must go much further. Animals have rights to be protected not only from the cruelty of individuals, but also from those structures and institutions which routinely (and, in some cases, necessarily) cause them harm, such as industrialised animal agriculture.  But even that isn’t adequate. In order to ensure that their interests are taken seriously, it is imperative that we represent their interests throughout the political process – they require not only rights to protection, but also to democratic membership.  Cochrane’s important intervention in this controversial debate will be essential reading for anyone interested in the intersection of political theory and animal rights.

All political communities must make decisions about how to regulate the treatment of animals. Most states currently protect animals through outlawing the infliction of ‘unnecessary suffering’. But do animals’ rights end there? In this book, Alasdair Cochrane argues that states must go much further. Animals have rights to be protected not only from the cruelty of individuals, but also from those structures and institutions which routinely (and, in some cases, necessarily) cause them harm, such as industrialised animal agriculture.  But even that isn’t adequate. In order to ensure that their interests are taken seriously, it is imperative that we represent their interests throughout the political process – they require not only rights to protection, but also to democratic membership.  Cochrane’s important intervention in this controversial debate will be essential reading for anyone interested in the intersection of political theory and animal rights.