Warren goal
to show that Regan’s view is flawed and that a weak animal rights view is the best we can do
Strong animal rights
some non-human animals, subjects-of-a-life, have the same rights as humans.
weak animal rights
the rights of most non-humans may be overridden in cases not permitted for humans. Which cases?
Regan’s Case step 1
establish the concept of a subject-of-a-life.
Regan’s Case step 2
link being a S.O.L. to having equal inherent value (see 115).
Regan’s Case step 3
link inherent value to having basic rights based on the respect and harm principles (115).
Mystery of Inherent Value
- Inherent value is defined in negative terms (116): it is = NOT being a mere resource for another
- Why do only S.O.L.’s get to have inherent value?
- Why assume that if you have inherent value you have rights?
- Consider the case of trees, mountains
Sharp Line?
- Can you draw a sharp line between a subject-of-a-life and other sentient creatures?
- Insects? Birds? Fish?
- If you leave out non-SOL’s, then you leave out the vast majority of animal life
- How do you apply the “benefit of the doubt” principle? (117)
Animals have weaker rights than humans
- Humans have reason, which can be used to cooperate (118).
- Cooperation is based on mutual recognition and moral equality.
- Most animals cannot cooperate through use of reason.
- So, there is a big difference between the equality we need to extend to humans and the equality we extend to animals.
What about infants and brain damaged humans?
Warren offers what she calls “emotional” and “practical” reasons for protecting such humans. How adequate is her argument? (119).
Weak Animal Rights (2)
- Animals do not have equal rights to humans.
- Humans can override animal rights in cases not permissible for other humans.
What rights do animals have?
Rights should be given to those sentient beings which can be harmed or benefited. Harms and benefits matter to them.
Rights should be given to those sentient beings which can be harmed or benefited. Harms and benefits matter to them.
- Have a right not to be forced to exist without satisfactions.
- Have a right not to be caused harm without good reason.
- Have a right not to be killed without good reason.
See page 120.
Implications?
- Warren is not clear what counts as a “good reason” for overriding animal rights.
- Defending ourselves from harm or death in ways more lethal than we would allow for fellow humans?
- Promoting our own important needs in ways more harmful than we would allow for humans?
