Do Animals Have Rights? Regan vs. Warren

Steve Jobs Joe Blow BDO / Chimp Dolphin Dog Tuna Clam Equal inherent value Equal right to be treated with respect 1. All humans have equal inherent value equally, and thus an equal right to be treated with respect. Subjects of a life* 2. Considering the variety of humans with equal inherent value, inherent value must be based on the simple fact of being a subject of a life. 3. Many animals are subjects of a life too. C. Many animals have inherent value and a right to be treated with respect equal to ours. * A “subject of a life” (SOAL) has sentience (experiences), feels pain and pleasure, has a point of view, has a life that can go well or badly OBJECTIONS?

Warren’s Objections REGAN Equal inherent value Equal rights WARREN 1.What is inherent value? Regan never really explains. 2.Why think it’s equal in chimps, dolphins, dogs, squirrels, fish, etc? 3.Why think inherent value generates rights at all? What’s the connection?

The basis of “strong” rights X and Y are rational persons and would agree not to kill each other X has a right not to be killed by Y and vice versa NOTE: (1) Regan thinks about animals from a rights perspective, but rejects the social contract perspective (“ contractarianism”) (2) Warren is embracing a rights perspective and explaining rights in a roughly contractarian fashion

Why animals don’t have “strong” rights The shark is not a rational person and cannot make an agreement with the man The shark has no rights to anything from the man

Strong vs Weak Rights STRONG RIGHTS—Absolute, not overridable Basic: based on agreements between rational persons Borrowed: based on the agreements of others—e.g. I’ll protect your baby (or cat) if you protect mine Basic: based on agreements between rational persons Borrowed: based on the agreements of others—e.g. I’ll protect your baby (or cat) if you protect mine WEAK RIGHTS—More overridable than strong rights Based on sentience—if X feels pain, we shouldn’t hurt X unless we have a very good reason WHAT WOULD REGAN SAY?

Regan’s Reply to Warren babies have strong rights that are not “borrowed” or derivative or secondary in any sense (our duties to babies are not “indirect”) so babies’ rights must be based on their own inherent value, not the agreements of others inherent value is the same in all humans, however they may differ in intelligence, etc. so the baby’s inherent value must be due simply to the baby being a SOAL but many animals are SOALs too so they have inherent value too so they have strong rights too

Beyond Singer, Regan, Warren: Sliding Scale View humans have strong rights, based on rational agreement human babies have strong rights too, but they’re borrowed, not basic inherent value varies, just as Warren says (she drops that point) amount of inherent value affects strength of an animal’s rights

Green Animal Rescue: often “sliding scale” chimpanzees elephants whales dolphins see movie my book -- Animalkind: What We Owe to Animals (at amazon)

Next question about what matters INTRINSICALLYINSTRUMENTALLYNOT AT ALL ANTHROPOCENTRISM ANIMALISM 1.Utilitarian (Bentham, Singer) 2.Rights View (Regan) 3.Strong/Weak View (Warren) 4.Sliding Scale (Kazez) CONSERVATIONISM Humans Humans and many other animals Some ianimals, plants, water, air, etc. Plants, water, air, some non-sentient animals (e.g. perhaps bees) Some animals, plants, etc. 1.What about whole species? “The Tiger” as opposed to individual tigers? 2.Could plants have intrinsic value? 3.What about whole ecosystems? 1.What about whole species? “The Tiger” as opposed to individual tigers? 2.Could plants have intrinsic value? 3.What about whole ecosystems?