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

Regan’s philosophical arguments: > Accepts animals can feel pain & that their pain is morally relevant.

Regan’s philosophical arguments: > Accepts animals can feel pain & that their pain is morally relevant. > Criticizes the INDIRECT DUTY view held 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 children but not directly to them.

Regan argues against this view: Who decides who “gets to sign the contract?” Ex: Blacks in South Africa were not allowed to be part of the social contract.

Regan argues: Is inherently wrong to torture a puppy, independent of anyone’s feelings about the puppy.

Regan argues: Is inherently wrong to torture a puppy, independent of anyone’s feelings about the puppy. Thus, we have DIRECT duties to animals.

Regan also dismisses UTILITARIANISM

UTILITARIANSIM is based on 2 principles: 1) Principle of Equality If your interests count, they count equally. (Regan supports)

UTILITARIANSIM is based on 2 principles: 1) Principle of Equality If your interests count, they count equally. (Regan supports) 2) Principle of Utility Do the act that will bring the best balance 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 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.

Regan’s perspective: Continuation of Western perspective that all humans have equal rights. Regan’s ‘leap:’ Include non-human animals in the moral equation.

SINGER If count, count equally Who counts are sentient animals (“above” shrimp) What counts is welfare/suffering

SINGER If count, count equally Who counts are sentient animals (“above” shrimp) What counts is welfare/suffering REGAN If count, count equally Who 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 human as dog, or pigeon (but not beetle.)

Based on Rights argument: Should be equally moral to throw out human as dog, or pigeon (but not beetle.) But Regan does NOT advocate, because: “Humans have a ‘wider web of obligations’ to others, thus would cause more harm 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. Singer: Rats NOT equal, but deserve “equal consideration.” Balance good and bad, choose least suffering.

WHAT Both often agree on WHAT we should do No agriculture. No animals in science No using animals for entertainment WHY. but disagree on WHY.

Be clear about the distinction between: ANIMAL RIGHTS vs. ANIMAL WELFARE

DONALD VAN de VEER Concerned about Singer’s statement giving rats equal consideration as children in slums. Concerned about Regan’s statements giving equal rights to rats.

VAN de VEER’s question: HOW RESOLVE CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS BETWEEN PEOPLE AND ANIMALS?

FIVE PRINCIPLES THAT COULD BE USED First, distinguish hierarchy of INTERESTS: 1. BASIC INTEREST Life vs. death

First, distinguish hierarchy of INTERESTS: 1. BASIC INTERESTS Life vs. death 2. SERIOUS INTERESTS Necessary for comfort, happiness

First, distinguish hierarchy of INTERESTS: 1. BASIC INTEREST Life vs. death 2. SERIOUS INTEREST Necessary for comfort, happiness 3. PERIPHERAL INTERESTS Luxury, not necessary or vital

FIVE PRINCIPLES THAT COULD BE USED I. RADICAL SPECIESISM Morally permissible to treat animals in any fashion one chooses.

II. EXTREME SPECIESISM In a conflict of interest between an animal and a human, one can: Deny a basic interest of an animal to promote even a peripheral interest of a human.

III. INTEREST SENSITIVE SPECIESISM In a conflict between an animal and a human, one can: Sacrifice a like interest of an animal for the sake of the human, butcan’t sacrifice the sake of the human, but can’t sacrifice a basic interest of an animal for a peripheral interest of a human.

V de V opposed to this philosophy as well: Puts all non-human animals in the same category; gives oyster, rat or pigeon same weight as chimpanzee.

V de V suggests 2nd relevant factor: PSYCHOLOGICAL CAPABILITY The more psychologically advanced an 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 of a more psychol. complex one.

(3) Sacrifice a peripheral interest of one to promote a more basic interest of another IF the beings are equal in psychological complexity.

V. SPECIES EGALITARIANISM If a conflict of interest, it is permissible to subordinate the more peripheral to the more basic regardless of species.

V. SPECIES EGALITARIANISM If a conflict of interest it is permissible to subordinate the more peripheral to the more basic regardless of species. (No regard for psychol. capacity, no special treatment of humans --- If like interests, provides no direction on choosing humans over pigeons.)

V de V argues for TWO-FACTOR EGALITARIANISM > Respectful to non-human animals. > Allows for palatable decisions in situations of inter-specific conflict.

ALDO LEOPOLD The “Father of Modern Conservation Movement.”

ALDO LEOPOLD The “Father of Modern Conservation Movement.” Primary developer of field of Wildlife Ecology

ALDO LEOPOLD The “Father of Modern Conservation Movement.” Primary developer of field of Wildlife Ecology A Sand County Almanac (1949)

The Land Ethic 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, plants and 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 has hundreds or thousands of connections

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

Humans aren’t capable of completely understanding a biological community.

The Land Ethic Stop seeing ourselves as conquerors Start seeing ourselves as members of a community.

Healthy biotic community is a STABLE community.

Who is a member of the biotic community? Species of plants and animals

Who is a member of the biotic community? Species of plants and animals Watersheds

Who is a member of the biotic community? Species of plants and animals Watersheds Soils

“A thing is right if it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the Biotic community. It is wrong when 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 keep the environment static?

J. BAIRD CALLICOTT “Radical Holist”

J. BAIRD CALLICOTT “Radical Holist” Distinguishes between Rights/Welfare and Environmental Ethics

“A Triangular Affair” Humane MoralismLand Ethic (Singer, Regan)(Leopold, Calicott) Moral Humanism (Aristotle, Kant)

“A Triangular Affair” Humane MoralismLand Ethic (Singer, Regan)(Leopold, Calicott) Moral Humanism (Aristotle, Kant)Individualists Holists

Callicott and Domestication Domestic animals are unnatural Criticizes Animal Rights groups for not distinguishing between domestic and wild. Domestic animals bred to “docility, 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, let go extinct.

What do about domestic animals? 1. Set Free. 2. Keep, feed, never ‘use’ 3. Keep, feed, stop reproduction, let go extinct. 4. Live w/ domestic and wild animals in a way that preserves the biotic community.

Callicott against vegetarian life style, because believes would increase human population 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.”

BAXTER Argues in favor of speciesism.

Self interest is not necessarily wrong. It is reasonable to feel differently about individuals of one’s own species as one does about others.

Speciesism doesn’t have to lead to exploitation or abuse. What’s good for humans is the same as 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 to humans and is meaningless in situations that involve non-humans.