防守的借口

Q4 Arts and Humanities Sjuttonhundratal Pub Date : 2022-12-29 DOI:10.7557/4.6545
Andreas Hellerstedt
{"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":null,"pages":null},"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\":null,\"pages\":null},\"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这篇文章讨论了18世纪早期北欧两个不太知名的动物权利倡导者。在瑞典,约翰·厄普马克(Johan Upmarck)在1714年提出了动物权利的“类比”。1709年,德国学者Proeleus提出了一系列动物权利和人类对动物的义务。两位作者都对这些权利加以限制。在Upmarck的案例中,这些权利是通过“类比”的概念来描述的。动物的权利只是一种不恰当意义上的权利,不能与人类拥有的权利相提并论。在普罗埃琉斯案中,动物权利作为人类和其他动物共同享有的一种权利,被置于一个基本的层面上。这使他们的立场比厄普马克的论点更有力,但动物权利在最终的分析中仍然被降级为从属地位。然而,尽管Upmarck也描述了什么是对动物的“非法虐待”,并讨论了它们的痛苦经历,但Proeleus在详细描述动物权利的确切性质以及人类照顾和保护它们的责任方面做了更多的阐述。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
'Ihre defension zu führen'
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Sjuttonhundratal
Sjuttonhundratal Arts 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.
期刊最新文献
Anita Wiklund Norli & Anne Svånaug Blengsdalen (red.),Greven og hans undersåtter. Makt og avmakt gjennom 150 år (Novus forlag: Oslo, 2021). 313 s. Peter Henningsen, Stavnsbåndet, serien 100 Danmarkshistorier (Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag, 2020). 100 pp. Kristjana Vigdís Ingvadóttir, Þrautseigja og mikilvægi íslenskrar tungu [Perseverance and Importance of the Icelandic Language] (Reykjavík: Sögufélag, 2021). 320 pp. Lars Edgren, Stadens sociala ordning: Stånd och klass i Malmö under sjuttonhundratalet (Lund: Studia historica Lundensia 34, 2021). 216 s. När pandemin mötte 1700-talsforskningen
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1