Tom Regan's Case for Animal Rights

Tom Regan is an advocate of animal rights.

In this article he begins by defining the goals of animal rights movement, which are practical in their ends:

1.  Abolishing animal use in science

 

2.  Dissolving commercial animal agriculture

3.  Eliminating all forms of hunting and trapping (and presumably fishing, though not listed)

These goals are absolute in their scope, and Regan acknowledges that some proponents of animal rights make moral allowances, such as animal testing for cancer research.  He considers the basis of these allowances to be emotional and says they still reflect a mindset of animals as resources for humans.  Regan argues that the goals of the animal rights movement are based in reason, not just emotion, and he lays out the historical reasoning that led to this view.

Question:  Why should humans not mistreat animals?

1.  The Kantian Account
Answer:  People who mistreat animals are likely to mistreat other humans as well.
Problem:  While we would not disagree with Kant's reasoning, he presents good conduct towards animals as only necessary when beneficial to humans.  Regan argues that this reasoning promotes speciesism, a viewpoint which still evokes prejudice against the interests of non-human animals.  Such a viewpoint would not contribute to the idea of animal rights.

2.  The Cruelty Account
Answer:  Mistreating animals is cruelty, and humans should not be cruel.
Definition:  Cruelty is defined by John Locke as causing suffering to a sentient creature and taking pleasure in doing so.
Problem:  Not all things addressed by the goals of animal rights fall into this definition of cruelty.  Regan cites the Draize test, a type of experimentation in which toxic substances are applied to the skin or eyes of animal subjects and the effects are monitored.  It is not likely that researchers take pleasure in the pain inflicted on the subjects, so their actions do not fall under Locke's definition of cruelty.  Nonetheless animal rights activists take issue with the practice, even if not with the practitioners themselves.  Cruelty by this definition will not suffice to establish a basis for animal rights.

 

An albino rabbit allegedly used in a Draize test

3.  The Utilitarian Account
Answer:  Mistreatment of animals runs contrary to the principles of equality and utility.
Definitions:  (1) The principle of equality declares that desires and needs are of equal importance to different individuals, the desires and needs are equal no matter who or what the individuals are.  (2) The principle of utility dictates that humans ought to bring about the greatest good outcomes over bad outcomes, accounting for interests of everyone affected.
Problem:  Equality and utility are not inherently connected.  It is possible to increase good outcomes but disproportionately for some interested groups.  Thus utility can allow for the introduction of prejudice, making it an unfit basis for animal rights.

Regan proposes that it is possible to account for animal rights (while avoiding all of the shortcoming above) by simply postulating the existence of animal rights, similarly to human rights.

1. In some situations the group does wrong to ignore individual rights (Romans executing Christians).
2. In other situations the individual ought to surrender rights for the good of a greater whole (Bert has eaten the microfilm).
3. Individuals' right to avoid harm should be overridden only under certain conditions:
1. Overriding individual right is the only realistic way to prevent harm to innocent others.  OR
2. Overriding individual right is the only realistic way to prevent a chain of events that would have brought harm to innocent others.  OR
3. Overriding individual right is the only reasonable hope of preventing harm to innocent others.
4. IF animals have the right not to be harmed, that right cannot be violated unless one of these conditions is met, and the weight of proof is on those causing harm.
5. Do animals have the right not to be harmed?

The same question, when posed of human rights, inquires whether humans have inherent value, independent of their utility and/or value according to another human.  Humans are mistreated when they are considered to have no value other than for the interests of others.

IF humans and/or animals have inherent value, then their rights are derived from the value of the individual, not the value of consequences.



All photo credits:  Wikipedia