For most people, the only food they know is meat. They grew up wearing leather and depending on location, cloths made of fur or wool. For entertainment, children are brought to zoos and circuses while eating hotdogs, burgers, or barbeque. In addition, children often raise their desires of having their own pets at home, prompt parents to buy pets from pet shops and which are later on, kept in cages. While these are indeed pleasant activities for the family, seldom are the animals considered or thought of after each bite of the delicious meal. How many had to die to form that one, big burger patty? Two modern-day philosophers present their cases on animal rights and how animals must be treated by humans. Peter Singer argues for animal liberation while Tom Regan pushes for animal rights. At first, the arguments seem unconnected, but later on, appear to be related to one another as both fight for the legal protection of animals. Singer and Regan claim that all creatures that feel have interests, all interests have moral values, and all interests must be treated equally.
Peter Singer’s Arguments for Animal Liberation
Singer’s definition of animal liberation rests on the belief that equality does not necessarily mean equal treatment, but rather equal consideration (Nozick). He claims that whatever animals feel as pleasure or pain must be used in conjunction with how humans’ determine pleasure or pain for all humans. Thus, not because animals are of a different level as humans intellectually, they will be subjected to a diverse moral standard. What makes animal liberation important is how it considers the rights of non-human animals in order to grant them the same level of equality as their human counterparts (Singer). The question now is “Is it possible to take the same standards to the level of animals?” The answer is “Yes”. According to Singer (1985), man, regardless of race, creed, religion, or genders are considered equal. However, those who believe in the hierarchical structure in society are prone to believe that it is not the same with animals because humans have various levels of tolerance, capacities, feelings, abilities, and sensitivities. If the question on equality will be purely based on these factors, then there cannot be equality in men because of the intrinsic differences, as Singer’s assertion about equality is not based on “equality of intelligence, moral capacity, physical strength, or any other matters [but rather on] how [to] treat human beings” (Singer). That is why equality is based on the principle of equal considerations, as it takes into account species other than human beings. As Jeremy Bentham asserts, “the day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been witholden from them a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month old But suppose they were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is no, Can they reason? nor Can they talk but, Can they suffer?” (qtd. in Singer).
According to Singer, what is important is the capacity of the being to experience suffering. If the creature is capable of suffering, then its suffering has to be considered in order to determine what is best for the being. Therefore, if a creature is capable of pain, then its interest must be considered. If it cannot feel any pain or pleasure, then there can be no interests. As Singer points out, “a rock has no interest in not being kicked because it has no capacity to feel the pain of being kicked” (Klein). A human being can feel both pleasure and pain thus; it is in his or her interest that he or she would not want to be kicked like the rock. Animals feel both pleasure and pain as well, however, there is a difference between the two kinds of sufferings. “Human suffering is morally relevant precisely because it is human suffering” (Klein), thus, it rates higher than animal suffering. However, this is where Singer points out that despite the hierarchy between man and animal, both should still be treated equally because both can experience pleasure and pain. As such, whatever legal rules, regulations, and policies apply to humans should apply to animals as well (Singer).
This argument presents that non-human creatures can make moral claims against humans. However, because they are not capable of reasoning, humans represent the animals in arguing for the rights of the animals, which will eventually show how to address and understand the moral claims for animals. How then should people respond to the opinion that an animal’s moral claim is comparable to a moral right when it comes to treating animals – without violating the animal’s right? Any activities or actions that infringe the rights of the animal or fall short of treating the animal as a being is considered a moral violation and thus, is morally objectionable (“Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy”).
As an example, factory farming is the most widespread way of altering animal bodies into food. In the United States alone, around 8 billion animals are “born, confined, biologically manipulated, transported and ultimately slaughtered each year” (SEP) for human consumption. The manner, at which these animals undergo this process cause huge amounts of suffering to the animals. Considering the grave conditions that these animals suffer in order to provide food for humans, including the assumption that these animals have no intentions of undergoing such sufferings, then would it be a morally justifiable act if factory farms are abolished in order to lessen the suffering and carnage of animals? For those who are meat-eaters, not having their staple food would be a huge adjustment and cause for frustration. For business owners, that would mean less income if laws are put in effect in order to minimize, if not totally stop, factory farming. Singer concedes that if this happens, balancing the equation between whose suffering is greater, then it is the animals that suffer more than humans because all humans will do is to change their current food practices and consumption habits.
Tom Regan’s Arguments for Animal Rights
Singer is one of the modern-day philosophers known for their utilitarian beliefs. In all these, Regan disagrees with Singer’s advocacy program for animal liberation, claiming it lacks fundamental significance. What Regan claims is that animals have a right to life and thus, like humans, should have equal intrinsic value (Hsieh 8). Regan’s stand is to abolish the use and abuse of animals in terms of scientific experiments, removal of commercial animal agricultural system, and commercial and sport hunting activities for man. For Regan, people should not view animals as staple food or something that will be used to further scientific experiments. In addition, they should not be used for entertainment that would generate money (as in the case of cock derby, dog fighting, and similar animal gaming activities) or be used in sports (deer hunting, bird shooting) that could result to death for the animal. For Regan, humans must instead change how they view animals. Instead of seeing animals as a source of food or resources, they must see them as animals with rights just like humans. When people successfully change their beliefs about animals, then what comes next is a change in their habits, too.
This comes in contradiction to previous beliefs that animals do not feel anything and that what has more relevance is the pain that humans go through. Now, thinkers have come to accept the concept of “contractarianism”, which is the belief that “ morality consists of a set of rules that individuals voluntarily agree to abide by” (Handur). According to Regan, contractarianism works for humans in such a way that those who “understand and accept the terms of the contract are covered directly” (qtd in Handur), which may be extended to people who are not yet able to understand or sign the contract themselves, for instance, babies and young children. Therefore, these young children are protected by the sentimental interests of people who love and care for them. Applying the same concept on animals, since animals do not have the capacity to understand and sign contracts on their behalf, they are then protected by the same sentimental interests of people who love and care for them. So for animals which are treated as pets, they are protected because of the sentimental interests of people who own them. However, in the case of farm animals, because there is no established loving relationship between the animals and the owners or caretakers, then there is not much sentimental interest present in the relationship. As a result, because of the absence of sentimental interest, if these animals end up being used as laboratory animals for experiments or butchered, the pain or death they face is justified (Handur).
In addition, Regan presents two other animal liberation theories that further collaborates his earlier beliefs in animal rights. First, Regan presents the Cruelty-Kindness View, which can simply be explained as humans’ duty towards animals to be kind and caring towards them. It further explores the idea that humans should not be cruel towards animals. Being kind towards animals is considered a virtue, yet being kind does not necessarily mean that performing a kind act equates to performing the right act. As Regan points out, a generous racist may be a kind person, but one who will extend his kindness to his own people only, not to everyone regardless of race and culture. On the other hand, cruelty as an act becomes cruel when the individual does not extend understanding and sympathy towards another. It is similar to feeling good when others are failing or suffering. To summarize, kindness as a method of reaching out to animals does not mean the individual is doing what is right, in the same manner that not witnessing any signs of cruelty means people avoid being cruel or doing wrongful acts. So, between the two, kindness is the better way of approaching and caring for animals. However, choosing one over the other does not mean it already answers the issues on what is morally right and wrong.
Another theory that Regan presents is the Rights View, which includes the value allotted to an individual. In layman’s terms, Regan refers to this as inherent value, which he claims is present in everyone equally, notwithstanding the gender, religion, race, birthplace, and others. For Regan, all must be treated equally and with respect in such a manner that their value is not reduced to that of a “thing” or as a resource that other people can use (Klein). Simply put, the theory states that one’s value is separate from his or her usefulness to another person. More so, another individual’s worth and usefulness is independent of his or her worth. Thus, when these individuals do not extend respect for another person’s inherent value, then it becomes morally wrong and is considered a violation of that person’s individual rights (Regan).
Applying the knowledge to animals, while it is true that animals do not have the same level of intelligence, comprehension, and other abilities as humans do, this does not mean they have less inherent value than humans. Despite the differences, Regan argues that animals must still be treated with respect because more than what makes humans and animals different, it is the similarities that are important, and not the differences (Regan).
Per Regan, people experience pain and suffering, pleasure, enjoyment, satisfaction, frustration, and other feelings that lead to the determination of whether the life was well-lived and if the person is leading a quality life. Still, the same things apply to animals whether they are pets or animals used for eating. They must also be seen as beings that experience life and with an inherent value of their own.
After all that is said about animal liberation and animal rights, another concept comes about, this is called The Least Harm. This concept is based on Regan’s animal rights theory, where Regan proposed that humans are “morally obligated to consume a vegetarian or vegan diet” (Davis). However, despite following a vegan diet, the audience pointed out that veganism also result in the loss of farm animals. Despite this knowledge, Regan asserts that humans are still compelled to follow a vegetarian or vegan diet because this is what will cause the least harm on farm animals, also called the Least Harm Principle (Davis). In the discussion about the Least Harm Principle, Regan says that field animals and farm animals are still the same, except that one is used to help in the production of other foods, while the other one is stripped and butchered for man’s consumption. At this point, Regan says, “Whenever we find ourselves in a situation where all the options at hand will produce some harm to those who are innocent, we must choose that option that will result in the least total sum of harm” (qtd in Davis).
Gary Francione Takes a Stand
Another philosopher in the person of Gary Francione attempts to combine the best features of both Singer’s and Regan’s approaches. Following the footsteps of Singer, Francione believes that sentience, or the capability to experience various levels of pleasure and pain, must be the only decisive factor for moral status. On the other hand, he also takes into consideration Regan’s position on inherent worth that it is equally shared by all regardless if it’s an animal or a human being (Stein).
In his argument, Francione believes that all sentient beings “merit equal consideration of their interests along with the consideration of other sentient beings” (Stein). As an example, Francione points out the interests of a dog must be placed and equally considered alongside the interests of other sentient beings. However, this has limitations considering that dogs do not have other fundamental rights such as the right to vote or apply for government IDs. Instead, what he asserts is the interest of the dog in that it, too, does not suffer just like how humans will be treated. What Francione adds to the table, which Singer and Regan fail to mention, is the interest “in continued existence” (Stein). Death, in any forms, equates to threat to animals as it is to humans. Therefore, to say that the life of humans has more moral worth than non-human sentient is false.
In another argument, Francione contends that for equal consideration to be applied equivalently to both humans and animals, there must be a change in thinking when it comes to animals as properties. As such, removing the connotation of animals as humans’ legal property will change the whole equation and apply interests and considerations equally for both man and animal. However, this entails rejection of all other uses of animals such as tools for experimentation, edible food for human consumption, source of clothing, and entertainment, among others. This also means humans can no longer have animals as pets because doing so means humans have a dominion over the animal (Stein). This stand of Francione is called abolitionist standpoint, which comes in contrast with the concept of welfarism, or the idea that “certain uses of animals are perfectly permissible as long as we treat animals well in the course of using them” (Stein).
Synthesis of Both Regan’s and Singer’s Theories
Both modern-day philosophers adhere to rather different philosophical outlooks, but in the end, they still manage to arrive at nearly the same conclusions. Singer follows the utilitarian position, while Regan takes the inherent value and deontological approach. After explaining their positions pertaining to animal rights and liberation, they both advocate that humans take the vegetarianism approach when it comes to human consumption. They both agree as well that animals must not be used for experimentation and that animals must not go through the fear of being hunted upon as part of humans’ sports and entertainment pleasure. Singer further stresses that when considering the welfare and interest of humans, people should also do the same for the animals. If not, then those who practice the unfair treatment is guilty of “speciesism”. He agrees that if there is a need to use animals for experimentation, then the positive benefits of using the animal must outweigh the negatives (Theories on Animals and Ethics). For Regan, he believes that humans and animals have a common and basic understanding of the world they live in and what they want in life. This basic knowledge is what gives them their basic rights. Thus, Regan finds it wrong for humans to use animals for their own convenience and in the process, deprive the animals of their basic rights.
In conclusion, I think both Singer and Regan were successful in presenting their points of view regarding animal liberation and rights. By clearly espousing their beliefs, complete with analogies and examples, it becomes easier to have an appreciation of their standpoints. While different on some points, both Singer and Regan were able to combine most of their beliefs. Francione was also able to clearly define his stand on animal rights given that his observations both come from Singer and Regan’s theories. On the other hand, he was still able to point out another view, that of removing or changing the mindset when it comes to how animals are treated and thought of – not as properties, but as non-human sentient, which would dramatically change how animals are treated and change humans’ lifestyle as well. What needs to be improved or must be thoroughly discussed is the concept of welfarism, in order to determine benefits and limitations of using animals for personal purposes.
Works Cited
Davis, S. L. “The Least Harm Principle May Require that Humans Consume a Diet Containing Large Herbivores, Not a Vegan Diet.” N.d. Web. 9 November 2014. <http://www.morehouse.edu/facstaff/nnobis/papers/Davis-LeastHarm.htm>.
Handur, Ethan. “Tom Regan’s Case for Animal Rights.” 2008. Web. 9 November 2014. <https://veganmuse.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/regan/>.
Hsieh, Diana Mertz. “Animal Wrongs.” 2005. Web. 9 November 2014. <http://www.philosophyinaction.com/docs/aw.pdf>.
Klein, Shawn E. “The Problem of Animal Rights.” 2004. Web. 9 November 2014. <http://www.atlassociety.org/animal_rights>.
Nozick, Robert. “Moral Constraints and Animals.” 1974. Web. 10 November 2014. <http://animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/Morality/Moral%20Constraints%20and%20Animals.htm>.
Regan, Tom. “The Case for Animal Rights.” 2004. Web. 9 November 2014. <http://onthehuman.org/2011/05/regan-preface/>.
Singer, Peter. “The Animal Liberation Movement.” 1985. Web. 7 November 2014. <http://www.utilitarian.org/texts/alm.html>.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [SEP]. “The Moral Status of Animals.” 2010. Web. 9 November 2014. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-animal/>.
Stein, Gary. “The Differences between, Singer, Regan, and Francione.” 2012. Web. 10 November 2014. <http://theabolitionist.info/article/ask-the-prof-the-differences-between-singer-regan-and-francione/>.
“Theories on Animals and Ethics.” N.d. Web. 10 November 2014. <http://iacuc.uchc.edu/ethics/theories.html>.
