Defending Animal Rights [Paperback]

His arguments are strong and simple: if humans have rights (and lets suppose they do), why is this so? What is it about humans that makes them have rights, that makes it wrong to kill them for food, entertainment, etc.? It is very difficult to find plausible answers to those questions that do not imply that animals do not have rights as well. Clearly Regan's critics have not.

Those who challenge the status quo with respect to humanity's treatment of animals will find Regan's essays clear, carefully argued, and revealing of his great insight into moral philosophy and the moral life. Defenders of the status quo--those who think that, by and large, society's treatment of animals is perfectly fine--have their difficult work cut out for them to reveal exactly where Regan's arguments have gone wrong.

They need to explain exactly why, although it's wrong to kill and eat, hunt down, experiment on, or wear non-rational humans (e.g., infants, severly mentally challenged, anecephalics, the brain dead, etc.), it is perfectly OK to do these things to animals who have more advanced mental capacities and the same capacity to suffer.

This is a very difficult challenge. Regan responds to some (although, unfortunately probably not the best) of his critics on these points and shows that their criticisms either just *assume* that animals don't have rights and/or are riddled with argumentative and logical blunders. Regan's critics are advised to take (or re-take) a logic course and learn what it is to "beg the question" and commit the "fallacy of irrelevance" before forming a new attack on Regan's arguments.

Not all of Regan's essays are focused on ethics and animals. One essay, "Ivory Towers Should Not A Prison Make," concerns the challenges (and rewards) that academics, especially philosophers, face when publicly advocating for social change. Politically or socially-active academics will find this essay to reveal great wisdom and insight.

Regan also adopt the role of historian and documents that the objections raised in religious and scientific communities to abolishing slavery and for increasing rights for women, minorities, and homosexuals are very similar to the objections currently raised against the notion of animals having rights. Regan shows that the "Patterns of Resistance" to fair and respectful treatment have been similar in all these "liberation" movements.

There is much in these essays of great wisdom and, often, beauty. They will appeal both to readers who already have an interest in ethics and animals and the animal rights movement. They will also appeal to those who do not have this interest or background, but, hopefully--after reading these essays (and others like them)--soon will.

"Harms intentionally done to any one subject cannot be justified by aggregating benefits derived by others. In this respect my position is antiutilitarian, a theory in the Kantian, not the Millian, tradition. Nonetheless, my position parts company with Kant's when it comes to specifying who should be treated with respect. For Kant, only rational, autonomous persons are ends in themselves...whereas on my position all subjects to a life, including all those nonhuman animals who qualify, have equal inherent value." (p.43)

In the above section, Regan's basic position is clearly stated. It is from this point on that the critiques against him become specific. He divides his critics into two major categories. The first being the intramoral, which include Jan Narveson, who critiques Regan for weighing moral intuition too high when discussing inherent value, and not relying on standard moral principles. Regan replies that Narveson's critique is inaccurate. Regan states that when all principles have been considered and weighted against each other two possible outcomes might occur. Thus, the issue of intuition becomes critical. He adds that it is important to be aware of the fact that we can never know if there is only one right theory of morals. The second category of critics is the intermoral. The critics in this category argue against Regan's theory of individual moral rights, stating that there are fundamental flaws in the individual way of perceiving the world. The critics argue that this fundamental view originates in a Western, male dominated, white society filled with prejudice against different groups. Regan replies by saying that although it was men who came up with the concept of individual morals we can't conclude that the idea itself is incorrect. He also states that just because ideas have been previously used in a certain fashion doesn't make the ideas inapplicable in the future. His final reply is that reason and emotion need to balance each other. Emotions in terms of considerations of a group don't need to be excluded in a world focusing on rationality and individuality.
One of the critics that Regan particularly focuses on is Carl Cohen. Cohen's critique is based on a fundamental belief that animals do not have moral rights. He says that all individuals have basic rights and that those rights prevent anyone from using the individual in order to advance the interest of the user. That animals should be included in such a framework, Cohen argues, is a mistake. He argues that non-human animals such as mammals and birds have the ability to reason, but argues that they "are not morally responsible for their actions." (p.73) Cohen bases his arguments on historically great moral philosophers that had contradictory thoughts about many issues but united when it came to the fact that humans were morally unique creatures. Cohen also emphasizes his belief that humans have indirect and direct duties to humans, but differentiates between duties to act humanely and the concept of inherent moral worth. Regan agrees with Cohen on this point, but goes on to explain that Cohen is inconsistent in his argument. Regan suggests that Cohen's argument against rights automatically becomes an argument against duties, which is contradictory to Cohen's stand.
This book attempts to elucidate some of the concerns raised in the animal rights debate as well as Regan's own position. Through responding to criticism, Regan outlines his basic arguments in a way that helps justify his position. There are issues still unsolved in this debate, which he recognizes. There are also issues that Regan consciously decided to exclude from the book. Some of these concerns might have been appropriate to address. What Regan could have focused less on are the last two chapters of the book, which addresses issues of personal integrity as well as the field of moral philosophy. These two chapters are sufficient in some aspects, but also put the author in an artificially produced light trying to make him look like a victim of unfairness. It might be an important issue to integrate into a larger picture, but can easily loose its power when being discussed separately. It places the issue as one of defending Tom Regan instead of defending the rights of animals.
In conclusion, this book is a serious attempt by Regan to justify his ethical philosophy about animal rights. Replying to some of the criticisms he has faced throughout his years as a writer on animal rights, he clarifies his ethical stance and allows for a deeper and more serious discussion in this field.

It's still good; it's just seem to be enough.