Objections and Responses:
Three objections that could be raised against my argument are; (1) Animals cannot be considered to have inherent value, (2) Only some animals can have value only due to indirect value to humans, and (3) According to Regan’s criterion permanently comatose humans would no longer have moral rights. There are many people out there that deny the idea that animals have inherent value and believe that only humans have inherent value. This is an anthropocentric view that believes humans have inherent value and everything else only has instrumental value as long as humans can use it. This view is what Regan says is “the fundamental wrong is the system that allows us to view animals as our resources, here for us—to be eaten,
…show more content…
This view is called contractarianism. To have value there are rules and stipulations that individuals must agree and abide by, like signing a contract, only “those who understand and accept the terms of the contract are covered directly”(Regan, 16). Those who are covered directly have rights that are recognized and protected in the contract. Those who sign can also sign for others that “lack the ability to understand morality and so cannot sign the contract themselves”, but are “loved or cherished by those who can”(Regan, 16). These secondary contractors are only recognized and protected in the contract because they are of sentimental value to others. These secondary contractors would include pets and children. While these secondary contractors lack rights themselves, they are protected because they are interests of the primary contractors that do have rights. The example Regan uses to illustrate this is if someone were to kick your dog, they would be morally wrong, not because they hurt the dog, but because they kicked your property and it would upset you; the wrong is not done to the dog fore it has no moral standing, but the wrong is done to you because you have moral value. The problem with contractarianism is that moral value applies to only animals that have value to someone else. Other animals with little or no sentimental value to others, like farm animals and lab rats, have no moral rights because no one cares about
They say that “[...] responsible private ownership of exotic animals should be legal if animal; welfare is taken care of.” People for this say that death rates from animals are low versus traffic accident death rates, and that if we have the freedom to choose our car, spouse, or even our house, why shouldn’t we be able to choose our own pet? I respond to this statement with this simple quote: “For the greater good.” Sure, having the freedom to choose and care for an exotic animal is something that we all should have, but you have to consider how buying this animal will affect you family, your neighborhood, your city, you state, your country, your continent, or even your world. So we shouldn’t own wild animals, for the greater
As Regan himself states, ‘I believe that the philosophy of animal rights is the right philosophy.’ (Ryder, 1992, p.55) Proving how strongly he feels on the subject. Similar to Singer, Regan was central in ‘providing intellectual justifications for granting a higher moral status to animals.’ (Garner 1997, p.1) Other animals do not deserve to be treat as inferior to human beings because having a point of view betokens having fundamental rights. This includes the rights not to be made to suffer, not to be confined and not to be killed by human agents. Animals have rights as beings with an interest in respectful treatment. Unlike Singer, Regan directly states he is against the use of animal captivity when he writes, ‘the philosophy of animal rights calls for an end to the capture and training of wild animals, for the purposes of entertainment.’ (Ryder, 1992, p.60) As SeaWorld, many wildlife parks, zoos and circuses exploit animals as a means of entertainment for money, Regan argues they must be brought to an end as it is against their rights as living, rational and autonomous creatures. Kalof and Fitzgerald clear up Regan’s claims in their book ‘The Animals Reader: The Essential Classic and Contemporary Writings’ when they state ‘the position he articulates in his writings is that animals, like humans, have moral rights, and treating them as if
Both in and out of philosophical circle, animals have traditionally been seen as significantly different from, and inferior to, humans because they lacked a certain intangible quality – reason, moral agency, or consciousness – that made them moral agents. Recently however, society has patently begun to move beyond this strong anthropocentric notion and has begun to reach for a more adequate set of moral categories for guiding, assessing and constraining our treatment of other animals. As a growing proportion of the populations in western countries adopts the general position of animal liberation, more and more philosophers are beginning to agree that sentient creatures are of a direct moral concern to humans, though the degree of this concern is still subject to much disagreement. The political, cultural and philosophical animal liberation movement demands for a fundamental transformation of humans’ present relations to all sentient animals. They reject the idea that animals are merely human resources, and instead claim that they have value and worth in themselves. Animals are used, among other things, in basic biomedical research whose purpose is to increase knowledge about the basic processes of human anatomy. The fundamental wrong with this type of research is that it allows humans to see animals as here for them, to be surgically manipulated and exploited for money. The use of animals as subjects in biomedical research brings forth two main underlying ethical issues: firstly, the imposition of avoidable suffering on creatures capable of both sensation and consciousness, and secondly the uncertainty pertaining to the notion of animal rights.
Cohen proposes that rights are a claim that must be exercised, and since animals cannot exercise their rights they cannot have rights. Furthermore, Cohen suggests in order to have rights, “the holder of rights must have the capacity to comprehend rules of duty, governing all including themselves” and thus must have a “moral capacity” (817). Hence, it follows that animals cannot have rights since they lack a free moral judgment and are thus are unable to understand morality or laws that govern society. Therefore, Cohen believes rights can only be given to those able to claim
...nimal rights yet I do question myself where to draw the line. I do not condone violence or harm against animals, yet I shudder at the thought of a mice plague and feel saddened by the extinction of our native animals by ‘feral’ or pest species. Is it right to kill one species to save another? I am appalled by the idea of ‘circus’ animals yet I will attend the horse races every summer for my entertainment. I think Tom Regan’s argument and reasoning for animal rights was extremely effective at making whoever is reading the essay question his or her own moral standards. Reading the essay made me delve into my own beliefs, morals and values which I think is incredibly important. To form new attitudes as a society it is important we start questioning how we view the lives of others, do we see animals as a resource to be exploited or as equals with rights just like we do?
After reading “Do Animals Have Rights?” by Carl Cohen, the central argument of the article is that rights entail obligations. Cohen examines the syllogism that all trees are plants but does not follow the same that all plants are trees. Cohen explains the syllogism through the example of hosts in a restaurant. They have obligation to be cordial to their guests, but the guest has not the right to demand cordiality. Cohen explains using animals, for example his dog has no right to daily exercise and veterinary care, but he does have the obligation to provide those things for her. Cohen states that animals cannot be the bearers of rights because the concept of rights is essentially human; it is rooted in, and has force within, a human moral world. Humans must deal with rats-all too frequently in some parts of the world-and must be moral in their dealing with them; but a rat can no more be said to have rights than a table can be said to have ambition.
What do we, as humans have to do in order to give nonhuman animals the proper treatment and equal moral consideration as we owe for other humans? Some, such as Jeremy Bentham would address that, “The greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation” (99). Other moral philosophers, like Henry Sidgwick, however reject the theory of utilitarianism thinking that is pleasure all that really matters and are consequences all that matters (111-112)? Humans use nonhuman animals for one purpose; pleasure from using their skins for luxury goods. In this paper, I will explain and examine what Jeremy Bentham is trying explain in his argument, and will attempt to show that his argument is a plausible one, by replying an objection against his utilitarian view.
In his essay “Religion and Animal Rights," the writer Tom Regan maintains the place that animals are "subjects-of-a-life”, like humans. If we value all beings regardless of the degree of human rationality that are able to act, we must also attribute to animals or as it is called non-human animals as well. All practices involving abuse of animals should be abolished. The animals have an intrinsic value as humans, and stresses that Christian theology has brought unbridled land on the brink of an ecological catastrophe.
... animal rights view, the animals, like humans have rights in the “utility- trumping sense”. The utility-trumping sense have vital interest that we must not override, even in an effort to maximize the utility for society. (Animal Rights, 20)
As an advocate of animal rights, Tom Regan presents us with the idea that animals deserve to be treated with equal respect to humans. Commonly, we view our household pets and select exotic animals in different regard as oppose to the animals we perceive as merely a food source which, is a notion that animal rights activists
In his essay ‘Three Wrong Leads in a Search for an Environmental Ethic: Tom Regan on Animal Rights, Inherent Values, and Deep Ecology’, Partridge claims that Singer and Regan both miss a significant element to the nature of rights: they only have a moral basis, not a biological basis. For Partridge, how alike human beings and other animals are in terms of biology is irrelevant. What matters instead is that other animals show no capacities of rationality or self-conscious, which is what makes us moral. For Partridge, this consequently excludes other animals from being rights
... concept. An animal cannot follow our rules of morality, “Perhaps most crucially, what other species can be held morally accontable” (Scully 44). As a race humans must be humane to those that cannot grasp the concept. Animals do not posess human rights but they posess the right to welfare and proper treatment by their handlers.
"The Case For Animal Rights" written by Tom Regan, promotes the equal treatment of humans and non-humans. I agree with Regan's view, as he suggests that humans and animals alike, share the experience of life, and thus share equal, inherent value.
Animalism is about what it means to be a person, it touches upon personal identity in human beings in a biological sense. Simply put, animalism is the theory that living humans are animals, that we lack morality, spirituality and intellectuality and are only motivated by sensual or physical forces. In Olson’s argument for animalism he states that it isn’t obvious that we are animals, but proves that we are considered a kind of animal, that can be identified by our body. He thinks that even though we are not identical to an animal, we are still considered to be animals, just a different species. Many philosophers disagree with this sentiment and believe the opposite, that we can only be identified by our minds and souls.
Humans place themselves at the top of the sociological tier, close to what we as individuals call our pets who have a sentimental value in our lives. Resource animal’s on the other hand have a contributory value within our lives: they provide us with meat and other important resources. In order to determine the boundaries between how we treat animals as pets and others simply as resources, utilitarians see these “resource animals” as tools. They contemplate the welfare significances of animals as well as the probable welfares for human-beings. Whereas deontologists see actions taken towards these “resources animals” as obligations regardless of whom or what they harm in the process. The objection to these theories are, whose welfare are we