Transcript No Slide Title

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.”) 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.
Both often agree on WHAT we should do
No agriculture.
No animals in science
No using animals for entertainment
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, 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
1887 - 1948
The “Father of Modern Conservation Movement.”
ALDO LEOPOLD
1887 - 1948
The “Father of Modern Conservation Movement.”
Primary developer of field of Wildlife Ecology
ALDO LEOPOLD
1887 - 1948
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 Moralism
(Singer, Regan)
Moral Humanism
(Aristotle, Kant)
Land Ethic
(Leopold, Calicott)
“A Triangular Affair”
Humane Moralism
(Singer, Regan)
Land Ethic
(Leopold, Calicott)
Holists
Individualists
Moral Humanism
(Aristotle, Kant)
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.