Minority Cultural Rights and Bullfighting in a Portuguese Context

IF 0.6 4区 农林科学 Q4 SOCIOLOGY
L. Cordeiro‐Rodrigues
{"title":"Minority Cultural Rights and Bullfighting in a Portuguese Context","authors":"L. Cordeiro‐Rodrigues","doi":"10.1163/15685306-12341581","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nA topic in contemporary political philosophy that has received substantial attention recently is whether minorities have the right to mistreat nonhuman animals. Mostly the debate is focused on minority practices in the West, such as Muslim religious slaughtering. However, other minority contexts, especially Iberian ones, have been largely ignored. In this article, I place the Portuguese case study at the center of political philosophy debates and assess whether this cultural practice ought to be banned. I do this by looking at four arguments routinely used in these debates. These arguments are that Portuguese bullfighting ought to be allowed because it has an economic role in the community, it helps address social prejudice, it promotes friendship and, and allowing it is a way to be legally consistent. I reject the four arguments and defend that bullfighting, in the Portuguese case, should be banned.","PeriodicalId":22000,"journal":{"name":"Society & Animals","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/15685306-12341581","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Society & Animals","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685306-12341581","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A topic in contemporary political philosophy that has received substantial attention recently is whether minorities have the right to mistreat nonhuman animals. Mostly the debate is focused on minority practices in the West, such as Muslim religious slaughtering. However, other minority contexts, especially Iberian ones, have been largely ignored. In this article, I place the Portuguese case study at the center of political philosophy debates and assess whether this cultural practice ought to be banned. I do this by looking at four arguments routinely used in these debates. These arguments are that Portuguese bullfighting ought to be allowed because it has an economic role in the community, it helps address social prejudice, it promotes friendship and, and allowing it is a way to be legally consistent. I reject the four arguments and defend that bullfighting, in the Portuguese case, should be banned.
葡萄牙语境中的少数民族文化权利与斗牛
当代政治哲学中最近受到广泛关注的一个话题是少数民族是否有权虐待非人类动物。辩论主要集中在西方少数民族的做法上,比如穆斯林宗教屠杀。然而,其他少数民族背景,特别是伊比利亚少数民族背景在很大程度上被忽视了。在这篇文章中,我将葡萄牙的案例研究置于政治哲学辩论的中心,并评估这种文化实践是否应该被禁止。我通过观察这些辩论中经常使用的四个论点来做到这一点。这些论点是,葡萄牙斗牛应该被允许,因为它在社区中具有经济作用,有助于解决社会偏见,促进友谊,并且允许斗牛是一种保持法律一致的方式。我反对这四个论点,并为斗牛辩护,在葡萄牙的案例中,斗牛应该被禁止。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Society & Animals
Society & Animals 社会科学-兽医学
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
12.50%
发文量
46
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Society & Animals publishes studies that describe and analyze our experiences of non-human animals from the perspective of various disciplines within both the Social Sciences (e.g., psychology, sociology, anthropology, political science) and the Humanities (e.g., history, literary criticism). The journal specifically deals with subjects such as human-animal interactions in various settings (animal cruelty, the therapeutic uses of animals), the applied uses of animals (research, education, medicine and agriculture), the use of animals in popular culture (e.g. dog-fighting, circus, animal companion, animal research), attitudes toward animals as affected by different socializing agencies and strategies, representations of animals in literature, the history of the domestication of animals, the politics of animal welfare, and the constitution of the animal rights movement.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信