{"title":"防守的借口","authors":"Andreas Hellerstedt","doi":"10.7557/4.6545","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses two lesser known proponents of animal rights in early eighteenth-century Northern Europe. In Sweden, Johan Upmarck argued for an “analogy” of rights of animals in 1714. German scholar Immanuel Proeleus proposed a set of animal rights and human duties towards animals in 1709.\nBoth authors place restrictions on these rights. In the case of Upmarck, the rights are described through the notion of an “analogy”. The rights of animals are only rights in an improper sense, and not comparable to the rights humans have. In the case of Proeleus, animal rights are placed on a foundational level, as a category of rights that are common to both men and other animals. This gives them a stronger position than is the case in Upmarck’s argument, but animal rights are in the final analysis nonetheless relegated to a subordinate status. However, Proeleus goes much further in detailing the exact nature of the rights of animals and the duties of humans to care for and protect them, although Upmarck also delineates what constitutes “illicit cruelty” towards animals and discusses their experience of suffering.","PeriodicalId":37573,"journal":{"name":"Sjuttonhundratal","volume":"66 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"'Ihre defension zu führen'\",\"authors\":\"Andreas Hellerstedt\",\"doi\":\"10.7557/4.6545\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article discusses two lesser known proponents of animal rights in early eighteenth-century Northern Europe. In Sweden, Johan Upmarck argued for an “analogy” of rights of animals in 1714. German scholar Immanuel Proeleus proposed a set of animal rights and human duties towards animals in 1709.\\nBoth authors place restrictions on these rights. In the case of Upmarck, the rights are described through the notion of an “analogy”. The rights of animals are only rights in an improper sense, and not comparable to the rights humans have. In the case of Proeleus, animal rights are placed on a foundational level, as a category of rights that are common to both men and other animals. This gives them a stronger position than is the case in Upmarck’s argument, but animal rights are in the final analysis nonetheless relegated to a subordinate status. However, Proeleus goes much further in detailing the exact nature of the rights of animals and the duties of humans to care for and protect them, although Upmarck also delineates what constitutes “illicit cruelty” towards animals and discusses their experience of suffering.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37573,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sjuttonhundratal\",\"volume\":\"66 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sjuttonhundratal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7557/4.6545\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sjuttonhundratal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7557/4.6545","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
This article discusses two lesser known proponents of animal rights in early eighteenth-century Northern Europe. In Sweden, Johan Upmarck argued for an “analogy” of rights of animals in 1714. German scholar Immanuel Proeleus proposed a set of animal rights and human duties towards animals in 1709.
Both authors place restrictions on these rights. In the case of Upmarck, the rights are described through the notion of an “analogy”. The rights of animals are only rights in an improper sense, and not comparable to the rights humans have. In the case of Proeleus, animal rights are placed on a foundational level, as a category of rights that are common to both men and other animals. This gives them a stronger position than is the case in Upmarck’s argument, but animal rights are in the final analysis nonetheless relegated to a subordinate status. However, Proeleus goes much further in detailing the exact nature of the rights of animals and the duties of humans to care for and protect them, although Upmarck also delineates what constitutes “illicit cruelty” towards animals and discusses their experience of suffering.
SjuttonhundratalArts and Humanities-Visual Arts and Performing Arts
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
32 weeks
期刊介绍:
1700-tal: Nordic Yearbook for Eighteenth-Century Studies is an international, multidisciplinary, peer reviewed, open access scholarly journal published by the Swedish Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies in cooperation with the Finnish Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies (since 2009), the Norwegian Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies (since 2010), the Danish Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies (since 2013), and the Icelandic Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies (since 2013). 1700-tal welcomes contributions on all aspects of the long eighteenth century written in Scandinavian languages or in English, French or German. Detailed guidelines for authors can be found on the website of the Swedish Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies. In the case of contributions in English and French, the authorial guidelines of Voltaire Foundations are used as the model. For further information on technicalities kindly consult the webpage of the printed yearbook or contact one of the editors.