Defending Animal Rights

Rating:
Summary: Review: Defending Animal Rights
Review: Defending Animal Rights is a written response to the criticisms of Tom Regan's previous writings and speeches. Regan carefully outlines some of the main arguments against him and the animal rights movement.
Starting with an explanation of historically significant philosophies and their importance to the moral issues raised in the field of animal ethics, Regan displays the foundation for his, as well as other influential philisophers' arguments. He explains the importance of the ideas of direct and indirect duties, perfectionism, traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs, Contractarianism, Kantianism, Utilitarianism, The Rights View, deep ecology, and ecofeminism. Of these moral positions the Utilitarian and the Rights View have provided the clearest stand on the issue of animal rights.
Regan recognizes that in today's debate of these issues the animal rights movement has been condemned in different ways by different groups of people. The main concern of this book is to thoroughly answer these criticisms. Regan states, "My major interest on this occasion is not to defend the movement against false charges but to clarify certain ideas." (p.30) Building off of this statement he displays a humble approach to his critcs.
In clarifying the ideas of the movement, Regan explains his form of Kantiant ethics. This view, in which he includes not just humans, but beings he defines as being "subject to a life" (beings who possess "sensory, cognitive, conative, and volitional capacities" (p.42)), embodies the main basis of his position:

"Harms intentionally done to any one subject cannot be justified by aggregating benefits derived by others. In this respect my position is antiutilitarian, a theory in the Kantian, not the Millian, tradition. Nonetheless, my position parts company with Kant's when it comes to specifying who should be treated with respect. For Kant, only rational, autonomous persons are ends in themselves...whereas on my position all subjects to a life, including all those nonhuman animals who qualify, have equal inherent value." (p.43)

In the above section, Regan's basic position is clearly stated. It is from this point on that the critiques against him become specific. He divides his critics into two major categories. The first being the intramoral, which include Jan Narveson, who critiques Regan for weighing moral intuition too high when discussing inherent value, and not relying on standard moral principles. Regan replies that Narveson's critique is inaccurate. Regan states that when all principles have been considered and weighted against each other two possible outcomes might occur. Thus, the issue of intuition becomes critical. He adds that it is important to be aware of the fact that we can never know if there is only one right theory of morals. The second category of critics is the intermoral. The critics in this category argue against Regan's theory of individual moral rights, stating that there are fundamental flaws in the individual way of perceiving the world. The critics argue that this fundamental view originates in a Western, male dominated, white society filled with prejudice against different groups. Regan replies by saying that although it was men who came up with the concept of individual morals we can't conclude that the idea itself is incorrect. He also states that just because ideas have been previously used in a certain fashion doesn't make the ideas inapplicable in the future. His final reply is that reason and emotion need to balance each other. Emotions in terms of considerations of a group don't need to be excluded in a world focusing on rationality and individuality.
One of the critics that Regan particularly focuses on is Carl Cohen. Cohen's critique is based on a fundamental belief that animals do not have moral rights. He says that all individuals have basic rights and that those rights prevent anyone from using the individual in order to advance the interest of the user. That animals should be included in such a framework, Cohen argues, is a mistake. He argues that non-human animals such as mammals and birds have the ability to reason, but argues that they "are not morally responsible for their actions." (p.73) Cohen bases his arguments on historically great moral philosophers that had contradictory thoughts about many issues but united when it came to the fact that humans were morally unique creatures. Cohen also emphasizes his belief that humans have indirect and direct duties to humans, but differentiates between duties to act humanely and the concept of inherent moral worth. Regan agrees with Cohen on this point, but goes on to explain that Cohen is inconsistent in his argument. Regan suggests that Cohen's argument against rights automatically becomes an argument against duties, which is contradictory to Cohen's stand.
This book attempts to elucidate some of the concerns raised in the animal rights debate as well as Regan's own position. Through responding to criticism, Regan outlines his basic arguments in a way that helps justify his position. There are issues still unsolved in this debate, which he recognizes. There are also issues that Regan consciously decided to exclude from the book. Some of these concerns might have been appropriate to address. What Regan could have focused less on are the last two chapters of the book, which addresses issues of personal integrity as well as the field of moral philosophy. These two chapters are sufficient in some aspects, but also put the author in an artificially produced light trying to make him look like a victim of unfairness. It might be an important issue to integrate into a larger picture, but can easily loose its power when being discussed separately. It places the issue as one of defending Tom Regan instead of defending the rights of animals.
In conclusion, this book is a serious attempt by Regan to justify his ethical philosophy about animal rights. Replying to some of the criticisms he has faced throughout his years as a writer on animal rights, he clarifies his ethical stance and allows for a deeper and more serious discussion in this field.

Rating:
Summary: a brilliant collection of essays
Review: In this collection of superbly-written and argued essays, Tom Regan, the leading defender of the moral rights of animals, restates and refines his main arguments that animals, like humans, have the right to be treated with respect and so not used by humans for food, clothing, experimental subjects, or entertainment.

His arguments are strong and simple: if humans have rights (and lets suppose they do), why is this so? What is it about humans that makes them have rights, that makes it wrong to kill them for food, entertainment, etc.? It is very difficult to find plausible answers to those questions that do not imply that animals do not have rights as well. Clearly Regan's critics have not.

Those who challenge the status quo with respect to humanity's treatment of animals will find Regan's essays clear, carefully argued, and revealing of his great insight into moral philosophy and the moral life. Defenders of the status quo--those who think that, by and large, society's treatment of animals is perfectly fine--have their difficult work cut out for them to reveal exactly where Regan's arguments have gone wrong.

They need to explain exactly why, although it's wrong to kill and eat, hunt down, experiment on, or wear non-rational humans (e.g., infants, severly mentally challenged, anecephalics, the brain dead, etc.), it is perfectly OK to do these things to animals who have more advanced mental capacities and the same capacity to suffer.

This is a very difficult challenge. Regan responds to some (although, unfortunately probably not the best) of his critics on these points and shows that their criticisms either just *assume* that animals don't have rights and/or are riddled with argumentative and logical blunders. Regan's critics are advised to take (or re-take) a logic course and learn what it is to "beg the question" and commit the "fallacy of irrelevance" before forming a new attack on Regan's arguments.

Not all of Regan's essays are focused on ethics and animals. One essay, "Ivory Towers Should Not A Prison Make," concerns the challenges (and rewards) that academics, especially philosophers, face when publicly advocating for social change. Politically or socially-active academics will find this essay to reveal great wisdom and insight.

Regan also adopt the role of historian and documents that the objections raised in religious and scientific communities to abolishing slavery and for increasing rights for women, minorities, and homosexuals are very similar to the objections currently raised against the notion of animals having rights. Regan shows that the "Patterns of Resistance" to fair and respectful treatment have been similar in all these "liberation" movements.

There is much in these essays of great wisdom and, often, beauty. They will appeal both to readers who already have an interest in ethics and animals and the animal rights movement. They will also appeal to those who do not have this interest or background, but, hopefully--after reading these essays (and others like them)--soon will.

Rating:
Summary: But he takes their money
Review: Mr. Regan criticizes his University employer for conducting experiments on animals, but continues under this employment and
enjoys the economic gains afforded the University by this
experimentation.

Rating:
Summary: Interesting, generally well written, profoundly wrong
Review: Regan has followed his seminal work, "The case for animal rights" by more than 15 years with "Defending animal rights". The book is well written and continues his arguments against all forms of animal use towards human ends (no more experimentation, farming or clothing from animals). As he has stated previously, his aim is not larger cages but empty cages. His is a radical abolitionist position.

To make this bold claim Regan must force animals onto the same ground as humans, he must present a morally demanding equivalence between humans and animals. This ought to immediately raise eyebrows, if not hackles, most of us believe that humans are more morally valuable than animals and we do not take kindly to the equivalence of people with pigs, monkeys, rats and so forth. To make the case, Regan argues that animals are, like us, "subjects of a life" with feelings, desires, needs, etc., who can experience pain and happiness. Being "subjects of a life" in this manner, animals have an inherent value that we are duty bound to protect.

It is not easy to define the essence of humanity but I doubt a mish mash of wants, needs, feelings, whatever, captures what it means to be human. Even taking Regan's contention at face value, it is legitimate to wonder how comparable humans and animals really are. Animals lack agency, the ability to change their world for the betterment of themselves and future generations. This ability sets us far apart from the animal world, which has remained static for millennia, while our world has provided incessant cultural growth and technological advance.

To dodge the obvious gulf between animals and us Regan uses those unfortunate members of humanity who are mentally incapacitated to the point where their abilities and senses may be comparable to animals. (Regan does not actually need to use the disabled in this way. Someone who is technically dead, alive only via a respirator with no brain function whatsoever is treated "better" than an animal used and killed for some experimental purposes.) Such unfortunate humans are not treated as a means to an end in the way that animals are. Regan suggests this is a double standard and calls us on it.

Again, however, the gulf between humans and animals comes into play, even in death. When a human being is lost the loss is felt at a social and individual level. The potential that the human being represented to be productive, insightful and to provide a contribution passes with death and we mourn that loss. The loss is, of course, particularly acute for family and close friends who would have had first-hand experience of the actuality of the person's existence and hopes and aspirations for the potential of the deceased. We do violence to the value a human being represented or could have represented if we treat a human instrumentally, even in death.

In contrast, animals never have any potential to do anything greater than their ancestors and direct contemporaries. Animals are not individual because while they may have distinct characteristics they lack the capacity to develop themselves and transform their existence. Animals are also not social because while they may live within groups, they lack the capacity to transform that group's behavior and they cannot take collective decisions within the group. In this sense, the value of animals is fixed such that it is always comparable to any other animal currently living, dead or projected into the future. When an animal dies, unless we have some particular association with the animal such as a pet, we do not mourn the passing because there is nothing to mourn. Animals never have the value that humans retain even when deceased unless we provide some value through a human relation.

Regan pushes the argument for animal rights as far as it will go but although animal rights can appear as a possibility it is really illusory. Animals lack agency such that they will never demand their own rights. This unbridgeable gulf places humans and animals into separate moral spheres with humanity taking the higher platform. Regan fails or refuses to see this but, thankfully, there are not many quite as blind as he.

Rating:
Summary: Not what I wanted
Review: Regan's "The Case for Animal Rights" is pretty strong stuff, and I was hoping this would be a structured defense of objections to that text. This book has some defense in it, but I was looking for something more encompassing and systematic. The book is comprised of several shorter pieces.

It's still good; it's just seem to be enough.