ANIMAL WELFARE and/or ANIMAL RIGHTS. TOM REGAN > Philosopher, Activist.

ANIMAL WELFARE and/or

ANIMAL RIGHTS

TOM REGAN

> Philosopher, Activist

TOM REGAN

> Philosopher, Activist

> The Case for Animal Rights ( 1983)

TOM REGAN

> Philosopher, Activist

> The Case for Animal Rights ( 1983

> Fundamental Wrong is NOT suffering, it is

the belief that we the belief that we ““view animals as our resources”view animals as our resources”

> Agriculture is wrong

> Hunting is wrong

> Using animals in science is wrong(even if it benefits animals)

> Pet keeping is wrong

(“In a perfect world, there would be no pets.”) Ingrid Newkirk, PETA

(“I think of dogs as war (“I think of dogs as war refugees, unable to berefugees, unable to be truly truly happy anywherehappy anywhere..”)”) Tom Regan, 2004

Regan’s philosophical arguments:

> Accepts animals can feel pain &that their pain is morallyrelevant.

Regan’s philosophical arguments:

> Accepts animals can feel pain &that their pain is morallyrelevant.

> Criticizes the INDIRECT DUTY viewheld by Kant

DIRECT vs. INDIRECT DUTIES

Traditional:

Those who can’t “sign the contract”are covered INDIRECTLY.

Traditional View, cont’d:

Those who can’t “sign the contract”are covered INDIRECTLY.

Thus we have duties regarding childrenbut not directly to them.

Regan argues against this view:

Who decides who “gets to sign thecontract?”

Ex: Blacks in South Africa were notallowed to be part of the social contract.

Regan argues:

Is inherently wrong to torture a puppy,

independent of anyone’s feelings aboutthe puppy.

Regan argues:

Is inherently wrong to torture a puppy,independent of anyone’s feelings aboutthe puppy.

Thus, we have DIRECT duties to animals.Thus, we have DIRECT duties to animals.

Regan also dismisses UTILITARIANISM

UTILITARIANSIM is based on 2 principles:

1) Principle of EqualityIf your interests count, they count

equally.(Regan supports)

UTILITARIANSIM is based on 2 principles:

1) Principle of EqualityIf your interests count, they count

equally.(Regan supports)

2) Principle of UtilityDo the act that will bring the bestbalance of pleasure over pain OVERALL.

(Regan does not support)

Regan’s “cup” analogy:

Utilitarians/Singer: Value is what’s IN the cup.

Rights/Regan:Value is THE CUP itself.

Regan argues that concern should be on individuals who have INHERENT VALUE.

Regan argues that concern should be on individuals who have INHERENT VALUE.

But who has “Inherent Value?”

Rats? Ticks? Lady beetles? Bacteria?

Regan argues that concern should be on individuals who have INHERENT VALUE.

But who has “Inherent Value?” Rats? Ticks? Lady beetles? Bacteria?

Regan argues it is held by:

““Subjects of a LifeSubjects of a Life””

““Subject of a Life”Subject of a Life”

Sentient, conscious animals who

> experience their own life

> have a sense of the future.

Consequences of Rights Perspective:

Can NOT use a sentient animal as a tool,no matter what the reason or what the outcome.

End does NOT justify the means.End does NOT justify the means.

Regan’s perspective:

Continuation of Western perspective that all humans have equal rights.

Regan’s ‘leap:’

Include non-human animals in the Include non-human animals in the moral equation.moral equation.

SINGERIf count, count equallyWho counts are sentient animals

(“above” shrimp)What counts is welfare/suffering

SINGERIf count, count equallyWho counts are sentient animals

(“above” shrimp)What counts is welfare/suffering

REGANIf count, count equallyWho counts are sentient animals

(“above” shrimp)What counts is basic rights (not to be used,

harmed or exploited for others.)

REGAN and THE FAMOUS ROWBOAT PROBLEM

> Given: 3 beings in a rowboat.

REGAN and THE FAMOUS ROWBOAT PROBLEM

> Given: 3 beings in a rowboat.

> Only enough water for 2.

REGAN and THE FAMOUS ROWBOAT PROBLEM

> Given: 3 beings in a rowboat.

> Only enough water for 2.

> If have to throw 1 out to save 2, what do?

Based on Pure Rights argument:

Should be equally moral to throw out humanas dog, or pigeon (but not beetle.)

Based on Rights argument:

Should be equally moral to throw out humanas dog, or pigeon (but not beetle.)

But Regan does NOT advocate, because:

““Humans have a ‘wider web of obligations’Humans have a ‘wider web of obligations’to others, thus would cause more harm to others, thus would cause more harm to sacrifice the human.to sacrifice the human.

WHY SENTIENCE IMPORTANT?

Why more important than suffering?

WHY SENTIENCE IMPORTANT?

Why more important than suffering?

Why less arbitrary than “ability to reason?”

WHY SENTIENCE IMPORTANT?

Why more important than suffering?

Why less arbitrary than “ability to reason?”

What is “inherent value,” anyway?

WHAT ABOUT LOGISTICS?

Rats in your kitchen?

Regan: Rats have equal rights.End never justifies the means.End never justifies the means.

Singer: Rats NOT equal, but deserve“equal consideration.”

Balance good and bad, chooseBalance good and bad, chooseleast suffering.least suffering.

Both often agree on WHATWHAT we should do

No agriculture.

No animals in science

No using animals for entertainment

but disagree on WHYWHY..

Be clear about the distinction between:

ANIMAL RIGHTS

vs.

ANIMAL WELFARE

DONALD VAN de VEER

Concerned about Singer’s statementgiving rats equal consideration aschildren in slums.

Concerned about Regan’s statements giving equal rights to rats.

VAN de VEER’s question:

HOW RESOLVE CONFLICTS OFHOW RESOLVE CONFLICTS OFINTERESTS BETWEEN PEOPLE AND ANIMALS?INTERESTS BETWEEN PEOPLE AND ANIMALS?

FIVE PRINCIPLES THAT COULD BE USED

First, distinguish hierarchy of INTERESTS:

1. BASIC INTERESTLife vs. death

First, distinguish hierarchy of INTERESTS:

1. BASIC INTERESTSLife vs. death

2. SERIOUS INTERESTSNecessary for comfort, happiness

First, distinguish hierarchy of INTERESTS:

1. BASIC INTERESTLife vs. death

2. SERIOUS INTERESTNecessary for comfort, happiness

3. PERIPHERAL INTERESTSLuxury, not necessary or vital

FIVE PRINCIPLES THAT COULD BE USED

I. RADICAL SPECIESISMMorally permissible to treat animals inany fashion one chooses.

II. EXTREME SPECIESISM

In a conflict of interest between an animaland a human, one can:

Deny a basic interest of an animalDeny a basic interest of an animalto promote even a peripheral interest ofto promote even a peripheral interest ofa human.a human.

III. INTEREST SENSITIVE SPECIESISM

In a conflict between an animal and a human,one can:

Sacrifice a Sacrifice a likelike interest of an animal for interest of an animal forthe sake of the human, butthe sake of the human, but can’t sacrificecan’t sacrificea basic interest of an animal for a peripherala basic interest of an animal for a peripheralinterest of a human.interest of a human.

V de V opposed to this philosophy as well:

Puts all non-human animals in the samecategory; gives oyster, rat or pigeon same weight as chimpanzee.

V de V suggests 2nd relevant factor:

PSYCHOLOGICAL CAPABILITYPSYCHOLOGICAL CAPABILITY

The more psychologically advancedan animal, more ability to suffer.

IV. TWO FACTOR EGALITARIANISM(Interests and Psychological complexity)

In a conflict between an animal and a human. one can:

(1) Sacrifice the interest of a less psychol. complex being to promote a like interest of a more psychol. complex one.

(2) Sacrifice a basic interest of a less psychol.complex being to promote a serious interest ofa more psychol. complex one.

(3) Sacrifice a peripheral interest of oneto promote a more basic interest of another IFthe beings are equal in psychological complexity.

V. SPECIES EGALITARIANISM

If a conflict of interest, it is permissibleto subordinate the more peripheral to themore basic regardless of species.

V. SPECIES EGALITARIANISM

If a conflict of interest it is permissibleto subordinate the more peripheral to themore basic regardless of species.

(No regard for psychol. capacity, nospecial treatment of humans ---

If like interests, provides no directionIf like interests, provides no directionon choosing humans over pigeons.)on choosing humans over pigeons.)

V de V argues for

TWO-FACTOR EGALITARIANISMTWO-FACTOR EGALITARIANISM

> Respectful to non-human animals.

> Allows for palatable decisions insituations of inter-specific conflict.

ALDO LEOPOLD1887 - 1948

The “Father of Modern Conservation Movement.”The “Father of Modern Conservation Movement.”

ALDO LEOPOLD1887 - 1948

The “Father of Modern Conservation Movement.”

Primary developer of field of Wildlife Ecology

ALDO LEOPOLD1887 - 1948

The “Father of Modern Conservation Movement.”

Primary developer of field of Wildlife Ecology

A Sand County Almanac (1949)

The LandThe Land EthicEthic

Individuals are members of a community.

The Land Ethic

Individuals are members of a community.

Individuals must balance their desires to compete with the need to cooperate.

The Land Ethic

Individuals are members of a community.

Individuals must balance their desires to compete with the need to cooperate.

Community includes soil, water, plantsand animals or THE LAND.

Biotic Community as the unit of concern

vs. an individual human Kant, Descartes

vs. an individual animal from shrimp “up”

Singer, Regan

Carnivores

Omnivores

Herbivores

Plants

Micro organisms, bacteria

Soil

Carnivores

Omnivores

Herbivores

Plants

Micro organisms, bacteria

Soil

Single community hashundreds or thousands of

connections

The community itself is an entitythat has health and well-being.

Humans aren’t capable of completelyunderstanding a biological community.

The Land Ethic

Stop seeing ourselves as conquerors

Start seeing ourselves as members of acommunity.

Healthy biotic community is a STABLE community.

Who is a member of the bioticcommunity?

Species of plants and animals

Who is a member of the bioticcommunity?

Species of plants and animalsWatersheds

Who is a member of the bioticcommunity?

Species of plants and animalsWatershedsSoils

“A thing is right if it tends to preservethe integrity, stability and beauty ofthe Biotic community. It is wrongwhen it tends otherwise.”

Aldo Leopold

Is there room in this holistic ethic for valuing both the individual

and the community?

What place do domestic animals have in the biological community?

At what point do we keepthe environment static?

J. BAIRD CALLICOTT

““Radical Holist”Radical Holist”

J. BAIRD CALLICOTT

“Radical Holist”

Distinguishes between

Rights/Welfare and

Environmental Ethics

““A Triangular Affair”A Triangular Affair”

Humane Moralism Land Ethic(Singer, Regan) (Leopold, Calicott)

Moral Humanism (Aristotle, Kant)

““A Triangular Affair”A Triangular Affair”

Humane Moralism Land Ethic(Singer, Regan) (Leopold, Calicott)

Moral Humanism (Aristotle, Kant)

IndividualistsIndividualists

HolistsHolists

Callicott and Domestication

Domestic animals are unnatural

Criticizes Animal Rights groupsfor not distinguishing betweendomestic and wild.

Domestic animals bred to “docility,Domestic animals bred to “docility,tractability, stupidity and dependency.tractability, stupidity and dependency.

What do about domestic animals?

1. Set Free.

What do about domestic animals?

1. Set Free.

2. Keep, feed, never ‘use’

What do about domestic animals?

1. Set Free.

2. Keep, feed, never ‘use’

3. Keep, feed, stop reproduction, letgo extinct.

What do about domestic animals?

1. Set Free.

2. Keep, feed, never ‘use’

3. Keep, feed, stop reproduction, letgo extinct.

4. Live w/ domestic and wild animalsin a way that preserves thebiotic community.

Callicott against vegetarian life style, because believes would increase humanpopulation even more.

Callicott Summary:

> Eat meat with respect

Callicott Summary:

> Eat meat with respect> Pain not always bad

Callicott Summary:

> Eat meat with respect> Pain not always bad> Primary unit of concern is biotic community

(holist)

Callicott Summary:

> Eat meat with respect> Pain not always bad> Primary unit of concern is biotic community

(holist)> Criticizes humane movement as demanding

“comfort and soft pleasures.”

BAXTERArgues in favor of speciesism.

Self interest is not necessarily wrong.

It is reasonable to feel differently aboutindividuals of one’s own speciesas one does about others.

Speciesism doesn’t have to lead to exploitation orabuse.

What’s good for humans is the sameas what’s good for animals.

(clean air, clean water, etc.)

How administer any other system?

How could one sacrifice another human being for an animal?

How can any of us claim to ‘speak’ for a penguin, a bear, a tree?

All questions are about what we OUGHT to do, but “ought” is a concept only relevant tohumans and is meaningless in situations thatinvolve non-humans.