LEADER 04318nam 2200661 a 450 001 9910824217403321 005 20240516101820.0 010 $a0-19-161898-5 010 $a0-19-162055-6 035 $a(CKB)2670000000153463 035 $a(StDuBDS)AH24082391 035 $a(SSID)ssj0000624688 035 $a(PQKBManifestationID)12263195 035 $a(PQKBTitleCode)TC0000624688 035 $a(PQKBWorkID)10586093 035 $a(PQKB)10976712 035 $a(MiAaPQ)EBC834785 035 $a(EXLCZ)992670000000153463 100 $a20110720d2011 fy| 0 101 0 $aeng 135 $aur||||||||||| 181 $ctxt 182 $cc 183 $acr 200 10$aZoopolis $ea political theory of animal rights /$fSue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka 205 $a1st ed. 210 $aOxford $cOxford University Press$d2011 215 $a1 online resource (vii, 329 p.) 300 $aBibliographic Level Mode of Issuance: Monograph 311 $a0-19-959966-1 320 $aIncludes bibliographical references and index. 327 $aIntroduction -- Universal basic rights for animals -- Extending animal rights via citizenship theory -- Domesticated animals within animal rights theory -- Domesticated animal citizens -- Wild animal sovereignty -- Liminal animal denizens -- Conclusion. 330 8 $aFor many people 'animal rights' suggests campaigns against factory farms, vivisection or other aspects of our woeful treatment of animals. 'Zoopolis' moves beyond this familiar terrain, focusing not on what we must stop doing to animals, but on how we can establish positive and just relationships with different types of animals.$bZoopolis offers a new agenda for the theory and practice of animal rights. Most animal rights theory focuses on the intrinsic capacities or interests of animals, and the moral status and moral rights that these intrinsic characteristics give rise to. Zoopolis shifts the debate from the realm of moral theory and applied ethics to the realm of political theory, focusing on the relational obligations that arise from the varied ways that animals relate to humansocieties and institutions. Building on recent developments in the political theory of group-differentiated citizenship, Zoopolis introduces us to the genuine "political animal". It argues that different types of animals stand in different relationships to human political communities. Domesticated animals should be seenas full members of human-animal mixed communities, participating in the cooperative project of shared citizenship. Wilderness animals, by contrast, form their own sovereign communities entitled to protection against colonization, invasion, domination and other threats to self-determination. `Liminal' animals who are wild but live in the midst of human settlement (such as crows or raccoons) should be seen as "denizens", resident of our societies, but not fully included in rights andresponsibilities of citizenship. To all of these animals we owe respect for their basic inviolable rights. But we inevitably and appropriately have very different relations with them, with different types of obligations. Humans and animals are inextricably bound in a complex web of relationships, and Zoopolisoffers an original and profoundly affirmative vision of how to ground this complex web of relations on principles of justice and compassion. 606 $aAnimal rights 606 $aHuman-animal relationships$xMoral and ethical aspects 606 $aSociety$2eflch 606 $aAnimal rights$xMoral and ethical aspects 606 $aHuman-animal relationships 606 $aSocial Welfare & Social Work - General$2HILCC 608 $aElectronic books.$2lcsh 615 0$aAnimal rights. 615 0$aHuman-animal relationships$xMoral and ethical aspects. 615 7$aSociety. 615 0$aAnimal rights$xMoral and ethical aspects 615 0$aHuman-animal relationships 615 7$aSocial Welfare & Social Work - General 676 $a179.3 686 $aCC 7266$2rvk 700 $aDonaldson$b Sue$0949120 701 $aKymlicka$b Will$0144469 801 0$bStDuBDS 801 1$bStDuBDS 801 2$bStDuBDSZ 801 2$bUkPrAHLS 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910824217403321 996 $aZoopolis$92145304 997 $aUNINA