Tom Regan: The Case of Animal Rights

Tom Regan states the animal movement is committed to the following goals, the total abolition of the use of animals in science, the total dissolution of commercial animal agriculture, and the total dissolution of commercial animal agriculture. Regan states the fundamental wrong is that we have a system in place that allows for us to view animals as our resources, here for us to be eaten, surgically manipulated, or killed sport sport or money. He believes that the idea of animal rights has reason, and not just emotion. He brings up the viewpoint that as humans we believe we owe nothing to animals, yet we can do wrong acts that involve animals, so we have duties regarding them, though none to them. Regan state that we cannot rationally ignore or dismiss the moral relevance of the pain animals feel. The view that animals don’t feel anything and that only human pain is morally relevant is called contractarianism. As humans we must recognize that we have some duties towards animals, as we have duties directly to each other. Regan bases his argument on the principle that the basic similarity we share to animals, is that we are all experiencing subjects of life. We are conscious creatures that have an individual welfare that is important to us. Regan states that this holds true for those animals that are trapped and eaten, that they must be viewed as experiencing subjects of a life with inherent value of their own. He believes that all who have inherent value have it equally, whether they are human animals or not. However, he makes an important distinction, stating that he isn’t sure if this “inherent value” deems recognizable for “others” such as rocks, rivers, trees, and glaciers. Regan also identifies as utilitarianism, where his choices and decision making is based upon whichever result will bring the best balance of satisfaction over frustration. Regan believes that our value as an individual is independent of our usefulness to another being and vice versa. Therefore the failure to respect another’s independent value is to act immorally.
            I agree with Regan that we all hold inherent value. However, I don’t agree that the ecosystem we live in and survive off of is isolated from this inherent value. As humans it’s our duty I believe to allot value to our ecosystem because it’s connected to the overall survival of all humans and animals. Also as an individual who eats meat, I view Regan’s ideas on consuming meat and connecting it to animal’s rights to be extremist and not practical. If the whole world decided not to include meat in their diet, it would have a tremendous negative affect on our ecosystem regarding food production.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Kenneth Goodpaster: On Moral Consideration

Kenneth Goodpaster leads us through many principles and perceptions of different philosophers to tackle the overall question, “ to whom principles of morality apply?” In order to begin to develop an answer for this question, we must first understand the framework of moral consideration, and then proceed to the application of this framework. Goodpaster presents to us distinct viewpoints on the sorts of entities that can and should receive moral consideration. He believes that neither rationality nor the capacity to experience pleasure and pain are necessary conditions on moral considerability. Instead, the simple act of being alive, for Goodpaster is a plausible criterion in terms of moral consideration. He believes that the universe of moral consideration is more complex that just individual persons and their joys ad sorrows. Goodpaster begins to draw the distinction between rights and considerability. He believes that the notion of rights are more specific that those of considerbaili...
Read more

Class #23: Heather Davis and Zoe Todd, “On the Importance of a Date, or Decolonizing the Anthropocene”

Heather Davis and Zoe Todd point out the failure of the Anthropocene, as a name to be assigned to today’s epoch. The start date that is being chosen for the Anthropocene is mid twentieth century 1964.  They are drawing connections saying that the Anthropocene, is explicitly linked to the beginnings of colonization. By linking the Anthropocene with colonization, it draws attention to the violence at its core, and calls for the consideration of Indigenous philosophies and processes of Indigenous self-governance as a necessary political corrective, alongside the self-determination of other communities and societies violently impacted by the white supremacist, colonial, and capitalist logics instantiated in the origins of the Anthropocene. They feel that the Anthropocene betrays itself in its name: in its reassertion of universality, it implicitly aligns itself with the colonial era. Heather Davis and Zoe Todd propose a 1610 start date to coincide with colonization p...
Read more

Rolston, Duties to Ecosystems

Holmes Rolston talks about the separate duties that humans and organisms owe to the ecosystem through distinct lenses. He states that the apparent harmony in ecosystems is superficial. Like business, politics, and sports ecosystems thrive on competition. He talks about how environmental necessity involves conflict, selection pressure, niche fittedness, environmental support, etc. These section pressures will routinely drive adaptation and counter adaptation; therefor the ecosystem is forcing a check on competitions by forced cooperation.   He believes us humans need to see that, an ecosystem has no centeredness at all, and we ought to simply value organisms for their evolutionary journey and purpose. The members of the biotic community have no shared needs; each species is individualistic in the sense that they are focused on the needs of their own survival.   He further explains how an ecosystem is far from being a satisfactory community, instead it is rath...
Read more