This paper discusses and contrasts the positions for and against the use of animals for the advancement of science. Moreover, the paper questions how right the use of animals is and whether we should be bothered by their sentiency.
The issue of animal rights begins with the question of what sort of beings are deserving of moral regard. Do we only treat human beings or include animals as well? It also begs the question, how are we supposed to treat animals? Do they have moral rights? When animals suffer, can we equate it to human suffering? Should we ban both experimentation on animals and large scale commercial farming of animal? What is the moral status of animals? Do we have a moral obligation to become vegetarians instead of eating animals?
Peter Singer in 1975 wrote a book Animal Liberation which launched the animal rights movement. It was and is a call for an end to human tyranny towards animals. It was a call to end the pain and suffering of animals. In fact, Peter Singer likened the tyranny on animals with that of white humans over black humans. Peter Singer position today is classified as utilization following on Jeremy Bentham’s agreement for sentiency as the bar we should use to measure morality as opposed to reason. The argument runs as follows. Since all sentient beings have the ability to suffer, it follows that they have interests. And since they have interests, when these are frustrated, it leads to suffering. Being a utilitarian, Singer’s position is one that seeks to maximize satisfaction of interests whether they are of humans or animals. What about Tom Regan’s position?
Tom Regan on the other hand adopts a deontological rights position which is the view that animals, like men are “ends in themselves” and therefore ought not to be exploited. Animals and humans have equal rights. In fact, to Regan, animals have similar essential properties like humans with regards to desires, memories, and intelligence and so on and this therefore gives them equal intrinsic value like humans. Regan is more radical than Singer. Why? He calls for the total end to commercial animal farming, all hunting and trapping of animals, all animals’ experimentation even eating of animals. This article discusses and contrasts the positions taken by these eminent scholars.
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION
Objectives and Themes
This work examines and contrasts the ethical frameworks of Peter Singer and Tom Regan regarding animal rights, focusing on the fundamental differences between utilitarian and deontological approaches to animal treatment.
- The moral status of animals and the concept of sentience
- Peter Singer’s utilitarian perspective and the critique of speciesism
- Tom Regan’s deontological rights view and the call for total abolition
- Comparing practical implications for animal farming, experimentation, and hunting
- The intrinsic value of sentient beings versus instrumental utility
Excerpt from the book
Tom Regan’s position on animal rights
Tom Regan is a professor of philosophy at North Carolina State University and is a leading animal rights advocate in the United States. Regan begins his article by noting the commitments of the animal rights movement (i) they are committed to the total abolition of the use of animals in science, (ii) the total dissolution of commercial animal agriculture, (iii) the total elimination of commercial and sport hunting and trapping. He notes that there are people who claim to believe in animal rights but see nothing wrong in say hunting of animals, tests on animals. Regan argues it is unjust on the animals and tidying up institutions will not do. According to Regan, what is fundamentally wrong with the way we treat animals are not the details that change from time to time but the whole system.
Imagine a Chimpanzee with electrodes sticking out from its head, a real calf ‘forlorn’ waiting to be slaughtered, a raccoon trapped by its leg. Writing in pain … is this right? To Regan, what is wrong is not the pain, not the suffering, not the deprivation. The fundamental wrong id the system that allows humans to view animals as resources to be used, to be eaten, surgically manipulated, loneliness, the suffering, the pain, the death of animals, what harms them. We seem to reason that some more straw, a bigger cage or space, few companions will make the animal’s life much better. This, Regan says are attempts to treat the animals “more humanely”
Summary of Chapters
INTRODUCTION: The introduction establishes the ethical dilemma of animal rights, contrasting Peter Singer’s utilitarian approach with Tom Regan’s deontological position as the basis for the subsequent analysis.
Keywords
Animal Rights, Peter Singer, Tom Regan, Utilitarianism, Deontology, Speciesism, Sentience, Animal Liberation, Inherent Value, Ethics, Commercial Agriculture, Animal Experimentation, Moral Status, Philosophy, Equality
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental subject of this publication?
The work explores the diverse philosophical perspectives on animal rights, specifically contrasting the utilitarian views of Peter Singer with the deontological framework proposed by Tom Regan.
What are the central thematic areas covered?
Key themes include the definition of moral status for non-human beings, the criticism of speciesism, the evaluation of animal suffering, and the practical demands for the abolition of animal exploitation.
What is the primary objective of this research?
The primary objective is to clarify and contrast the differing approaches to animal liberation, helping the reader understand the fundamental shift required in human attitudes toward animals.
Which scientific or philosophical methods are employed?
The author employs a comparative philosophical analysis, evaluating utilitarian and deontological arguments against the reality of institutionalized animal treatment.
What is examined in the main body of the work?
The main body investigates the ethical commitments of the animal rights movement, the logic of sentience as a basis for morality, and the radical systemic changes required by a rights-based perspective.
Which keywords characterize this work?
Prominent keywords include Animal Rights, Utilitarianism, Deontology, Speciesism, and Inherent Value.
How does Regan’s definition of morality affect animals?
Regan argues that morality is a contractual system, yet he contends that animals possess rights based on their inherent value as "experiencing subjects of a life," regardless of their ability to sign a contract.
Why does Regan characterize his position as more radical than Singer’s?
Regan is considered more radical because he calls for the total abolition of all institutionalized animal use, such as commercial farming and experimentation, rather than simply improving the conditions of animal treatment.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Mbogo Wa Wambui (Autor:in), 2013, The Difference in Tom Regan's and Peter Singer's Positon on Animal Rights, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/322853
