Cindy Phillips

A dominant belief in political philosophy is that states must be entitled to authorize the use of coercion in order to justifiably coerce its subjects. Call this view the entitlement view. On this view, for a state to justifiably coerce its subjects, a necessary condition is that it is entitled to authorize the use of coercion. Sceptics hold the entitlement view. However, they deny that states are entitled to authorize the use of coercion. This denial informs their views regarding the permissible use of political power. Skeptics believe that nearly all uses of political power is impermissible. In this paper, I present a challenge to the skeptical view that nearly all uses of political power is impermissible. I also present a view on the justification of certain uses of political power that is an alternate to the entitlement view. My alternate view allows me to demonstrate that a state can engage in permissible uses of political power over a broad range of domains without possessing any entitlements.

Undercover filming is a method commonly used by animal activist groups to expose animal cruelty and it is important to consider the effects of publically releasing video footage of cruel practices on the viewers’ mental health. Previously, we reported that members of the Australian public were emotionally distressed soon after viewing media broadcasts of cruelty to Australian cattle exported for slaughter in Indonesia in 2011. To explore if there were any long term impacts from exposure to media on this issue, a self-selecting group of 15 people who were exposed to a documentary exposé of the cruelty were re-interviewed 12 months later. Nearly all recalled their strong initial reaction to the footage. Approximately one half of the respondents who initially had had a strong emotional reaction to the footage reported negative reactions that were still strong even after this period of time. They reported potential triggers for these feelings. Of the rest, some managed to internalise their feelings. Approximately one half of respondents were unaware of continued live export exposés, suggesting less prominent media coverage. Despite the aversion and repulsion reported after viewing the initial coverage, most respondents said they would choose to watch another broadcast of animal cruelty and nearly all supported undercover investigations as a means of revealing cruelty to animals. We conclude that many people viewing footage of cruelty to animals will have long term memory of this, but that they would prefer to be informed about the issues and not be protected from them

Standards for farm animal welfare are variously managed at a national level by government-led regulatory control, by consumer-led welfare economics and co-regulated control in a partnership between industry and government. In the latter case the control of research to support animal welfare standards by the relevant industry body may lead to a conflict of interest on the part of researchers, who are dependent on industry for continued research funding. We examine this dilemma by reviewing two case studies of research published under an Australian co-regulated control system. Evidence of unsupported conclusions that are favourable to industry is provided, suggesting that researchers do experience a conflict of interest that may influence the integrity of the research. Alternative models for the management of research are discussed, including the establishment of an independent research management body for animal welfare because of its public good status and the use of public money derived from taxation, with representation from government, industry, consumers, and advocacy groups