Tom Regan: Animal Rights as Natural Rights

Animal Rights ◽  
1998 ◽  
pp. 87-119
Author(s):  
Mark Rowlands
Keyword(s):  
Animal Rights ◽  
Natural Rights ◽  
Tom Regan

The Case for Animal Rights

Dialogue ◽  
1984 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 669-676 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hugh Lehman
Keyword(s):  
Animal Rights ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Moral Rights ◽  
Toxicity Tests ◽  
Wild Animals ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Moral Obligations ◽  
Moral Condemnation ◽  
Tom Regan

In his previous papers written on the topic of animal rights, Tom Regan argued that on the assumption that certain human beings have moral rights then so do certain animals. Here the argument is carried a stage further; Regan argues that some animals have certain moral rights. For the most part the book is taken up with criticizing alternative views concerning our moral obligations to animals and explaining and defending “The Rights View”. In the final chapter, Regan draws out the implications ofthe rights view. These include arguing for an obligation to be a vegetarian, moral condemnation of hunting and trapping of wild animals as well as of most of the uses of animals for scientific purposes. Animals are not to be used for toxicity tests, in education contexts or in scientific research even though this may produce beneficial consequences for humans and other animals. The book is very clearly written and well argued. It covers all important positions and arguments related t o the question of our moral obligations to animals. It is, I believe, the best book to appear on this subject to date.

scholarly journals O moralnych obowiązkach ludzi wobec zwierząt. Etyka Gary’ego Francione

2015 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 93-106
Author(s):  
Dorota Probucka
Keyword(s):  
Animal Rights ◽  
Mental States ◽  
Peter Singer ◽  
Moral Obligations ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
Animal Rights Movement ◽  
Human Interest ◽  
Biological Trait ◽  
Conflict Situations ◽  
Tom Regan

The purpose of my article is to present and analyze the ethical views of Gary Francione – the leading, contemporary representative of the Animal Rights Movement. He built his theory by criticizing the views of two other supporters of the idea of animal liberation: Peter Singer and Tom Regan. In his opinion, neither of these philosophers did not escape from the anthropocentric paradigm binding the moral obligations to animals with the primacy of human interest. Singer believed that only humans have the ability to plan their own future, and only they want to live and extend their own existence. While according to Regan, in conflict situations, respect for human interest should be dominant. Francione agrees that only people understand a deeper meaning of their own existence, but it does not follow that only they want to live and do not want to die. The need to preserve and continue life is not the result of mental states, but it is a consequence of sensitivity – the biological trait which aims to safeguard and continuation of life. According to Francione, if every sensitive creature has an interest in preserving his own life and avoiding suffering it they also have a moral right to life and not being treated in a cruel manner.

Animal Rights and Political Theory

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julian Franklin
Keyword(s):  
Immanuel Kant ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
Animal Rights ◽  
David Hume ◽  
Vegetarian Diet ◽  
Classical Antiquity ◽  
Animal Protection ◽  
Charles Hartshorne ◽  
Tom Regan ◽  
Bernard Mandeville

In the ancient world, the idea that killing animals for food is wrong arose mainly from belief in a deep continuity between the animal and human psyche. The underlying thought is that the victimization of an animal is sinful and dehumanizing. Among the Greeks, orphic ritual and mysticism mixed with philosophy prescribe a vegetarian diet as a condition of self-purification. Perhaps the major extant work on vegetarianism dating from classical antiquity is On Abstinence from Animal Flesh by the neo-Platonist Porphyry, the student and biographer of Plotinus, himself a vegetarian. Peter Singer's immensely popular book Animal Liberation (1975) almost immediately generated a new movement for animal rights as distinct from a program limited to animal welfare, animal protection, and prevention of cruelty. This article explores the link between animal rights and political theory, focusing on the views of such thinkers as John Wesley, Bernard Mandeville, Francis Hutcheson, David Hume, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Jeremy Bentham, Tom Regan, Immanuel Kant, Christine M. Korsgaard, and Charles Hartshorne.

scholarly journals Animal Ethics: Beyond Neutrality, Universality, and Consistency

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 34-45
Author(s):  
Sreetama Chakraborty
Keyword(s):  
Animal Rights ◽  
Animal Ethics ◽  
Animal Experimentation ◽  
Moral Values ◽  
Future Generations ◽  
Peter Singer ◽  
Jeremy Bentham ◽  
Animal Use ◽  
Tom Regan ◽  
Power Hierarchy

This paper reflects a possibility of going beyond the postmodernists’ way of ethically examining non-human animals based on the tripartite pillars of neutrality, universality, and consistency. My concentration focuses on some interrelated queries, such as – What does animal ethics conventionally mean? How did power, hierarchy, and domination separate humans from other animals? How does the fate of non-human animals (whether they ought to be morally considered or not) depend on humans’ moral values? How far is it justified to secure animal rights in the age of perilous animal use, especially for food or during animal experimentation? While examining these issues, I bring into light the several arguments and positions put forward by thinkers such as Jeremy Bentham, Peter Singer, Tom Regan, Carl Cohen, Brian Berry, and others. Moreover, my search is for a non-anthropocentric sustainable paradigm, to balance human interests and animal needs together, in order to sustain the future generations of human and non-human intimacy.  

scholarly journals 對虐貓事件的儒家生命倫理學思考——兼論動物權利

2007 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 65-78
Author(s):  
Yungling WANG
Keyword(s):  
Animal Rights ◽  
Human Life ◽  
Chinese Society ◽  
Chinese Government ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Public Media ◽  
Digital Commons ◽  
The Status ◽  
Tom Regan ◽  
The Relationship

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract also in English.二O O 六年春，中國發生了一次女子虐貓引發民眾憤怒的事件。許多批評者措詞激烈，不少媒體也介入了對該事件的報道和評論。在這種報道和評論中，包括記者和專家在內，幾乎毫無例外地對女子虐貓的行為給予了否定，他們認為女子虐貓行為殘忍變態，激進者認為虐貓行為侵犯動物權利，中國應當對動物權利保護立法。但是這些認識和評論或者源於生活經驗，或者源於道德直覺，或者源於糢糊不清的道德認知，卻缺乏其正理性的深入的哲學或者倫理學思考，在儒家生命倫理學看來是荒謬的。對動物權利的主張起源於動物保護運動， 今天的主要代表人物是辛格和湯姆．雷根 (Tom Regan)。但在儒家生命倫理學看來，他們關於動物與人平等和動物享有權利的觀點都是站不住腳的。儒家生命倫理學認為， 萬物之中人為貴， 人的地位無可爭辯地高於動物。儒家思想家幾乎從來沒有把動物放在與人平等的地位上加以考慮， 而是把人放在差等之愛的最高地位。此外，在儒家思想體系中， 動物不但地位低下，而且其心智、認識、行為均不可與人相比。儒家思想家會同意湯姆．雷根關於人是“生活的主體”的觀點，但卻不承認動物也能成為“生活的主體”，理由很簡單，動物沒有父子之親，沒有男女之別，沒有行為規範。儒家經典著作認為，人獸之別，還在於人有禮，而動物則沒有。在儒家看來，道德與倫理只與人類生活有關，而與動物無闕，人與動物的關係不能成為道德之一倫。總之，動物權利無法得到儒家生命倫理學的辯護。動物權利論危害甚大。抬高動物的權利地位，其實質就是降低人類的權利地位，傷害人類，或者說反人類。主張為動物權利或動物福利立法，是十分危險的事情。In the spring of 2006, a Chinese woman maltreated a cat and caused indignation in Chinese society. Many individuals launched critiques on the woman with severe tongue, and public media took part in the report and critique of the incident. Some individuals argue that the woman infringed animal rights and the Chinese government should formulate a law to protect animal rights. This essay draws on Confucian moral and intellectual resources to contend that animals do not have rights and the Chinese government should not issue any law on animal rights.The proposition of animal rights came from the modern Western "animal-protecting movement". The primary representative scholars who attempt to argue for animal rights are Peter Singer and Tom Regan: they hold that human beings and animals are equal and animals should have rights. This view, however, cannot fit into Confucian bioethics. On the Confucian view, human beings are the noblest beings in the world. The status of human being is without question higher than the status of animals. Confucian scholars would never give a position to animals that would be same as human beings. Although Confucian scholars can agree with Tom Regan on the view that human beings are "the subjects of life," they cannot accept the view that animals could be "the subjects of life." The Confucian arguments are very clear: Animals do not have the virtue of qin (intimacy) between the father and the son; they do not have the virtue of bie (difference) between the male and the female; and they do not have behavior norms (de). In short, human beings and animals are essentially difference, on Confucianism, because human beings can cultivate the virtues based on the practice of rituals (li, 禮), while animals do not have the practice of rituals at all. Accordingly, from the Confucian perspective, morality or ethics is only related with human life, but is outside of animal life. The relationship between human beings and animals does not belong to the moral relationship. In a word, animal rights cannot be accepted by Confucian bioethics.Upholding animal rights is consequently undesirable. Heightening animal status is equivalent to debasing human status. This is to harm human beings. This paper concludes that legalizing animal rights is very dangerous.DOWNLOAD HISTORY | This article has been downloaded 169 times in Digital Commons before migrating into this platform.

Introduction

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-38
Author(s):  
Jane Spencer
Keyword(s):  
Eighteenth Century ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Natural History ◽  
Animal Rights ◽  
Natural Rights ◽  
Animal Life ◽  
Age Of Revolution ◽  
Nonhuman Animals ◽  
Animal Representation ◽  
Opening Up

This chapter places nonhuman animals at the centre of the age of revolution, outlining the naturalistic and sympathetic perspectives on animal life underpinning emergent animal rights discourses. Firstly it shows how eighteenth-century natural history influenced a shift from symbolic to literal animal representation. Secondly it argues that David Hume’s and Adam Smith’s philosophies of sympathy each encouraged anthropomorphism in animal representation, Hume’s by blurring the distinction between rationality and animality, Smith’s by opening up the possibility of imaginative projection into nonhuman experiences. Thirdly, it traces the radicalization of the idea of natural rights, showing how the concept of human rights was locked in a complex and fraught relationship with that of animal rights. Human demands for rights entailed claims to a fully human rationality distinct from animality, but the concept of universal natural rights for man and woman was extended beyond the human.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document