[Class Title]
Protecting animal rights is one of the major advocacies in contemporary society and such fervor can be attributed to animal rights advocates with the likes of Tom Regan. In his article ‘The Case for Animal Rights,’ Regan took an absolutism stand in support animal rights and established the theoretical framework of absolutism or Kantianism as the most plausible moral and ethical foundation why humans should protect animal rights at all cost. Regan approached his topic by examining ethical theories that serves as the common basis of human morality. According to Regan, it is fundamentally wrong for humans to view animals as their resources; that animals exist in order to be “eaten, or surgically manipulated, or exploited for sport or money” (Regan 337). Regan observed that in order to adhere to the truest and strictest sense of being ethical when it comes to being an animal rights advocate, it is not enough to just raise animals in a humane way. For Regan, in order to be truly ethical, it is inevitable that animal agriculture should be totally dissolved (Regan 337). In order to support his ethical views, Regan proceeded to develop his argument by justifying the morality of respecting animal rights. According to Regan, humans have a duty or moral obligation to defend animal rights primarily because, like humans, animals are also entitled to live in their natural niche. Most people, for instance, have a wrong notion of what animal rights is. In order to illustrate, Regan observed that by kicking a dog, most people would think that the wrong doing was done to the owner and not to the dog itself. According to Regan, this is the case so primarily because most people see the dog as the property of its owner and so any direct attack to the dog is also a direct attack to the owner. Nevertheless, the dog’s right in this case is only secondary
Society’s duty towards animals, is often considered as indirect. According to Regan, people believe it is morally right not to hurt an animal not because they are concerned about the animals itself, but because he is concerned that he might hurt another person who has sentiments for the animal. This moral perspective, according to Regan, adheres to the ethical principle of contractarianism. Contractarianism stems from the ethical principle developed by the famous philosopher, Thomas Hobbes. In a nutshell, the ethical principle of contractarianism posits that people act morally because they want to protect their self-interest. As scholars put it, contractarianism motivates people to accept morality “first because we are vulnerable to the depredations of others, and second because we can all benefit from cooperation with others”. Regan argued that contractarianism is weak and could not be relied upon as an ethical framework for animal rights advocacies. Accordingly, this ethical perspective would only motivate people to protect animals because they see it as a duty towards fellow human beings. However, this sense of duty decreases to a vanishing point in the case of other animals that most people do not have a sentimental connection with such as farm animals and laboratory rats. But the question is, just because most people are not sentimental toward them, does it make them less entitled to the protection that people show to other animals they have sentiments with? Rhetorically, Regan was able to establish that there was indeed a flaw in the argument that “animals don't feel anything as well as the idea that only human pain can be morally relevant” (Regan 338). But despite the fact that contractarianism can be used as a philosophical basis in support of animal rights, Regan believes that the utilitarian sense of contractarianism is still inadequate or even “utterly moot” as a theoretical framework for advocating animal rights. According to Regan, the strength of contractarianism ethics is based on numbers since it only protects the sentiments of the majority, but is insensitive to the sentiments of the marginalized. Furthermore, Regan examines the validity of utilitarianism in defending the morality of protecting the rights of animals. According to Regan, while the utilitarian ethical principle advocates for satisfying the interest of everyone, its concept of equality lies on emotions; that is, the balance between satisfaction and frustration. In choosing what is morally right, for instance, a utilitarian would weight the satisfactions and frustrations on opposite sides and tipping the balance towards satisfaction is where one’s moral duty lies (Regan 341). Apparently, utilitarianism does not guarantee that everyone is satisfied and satisfaction is highly relative. According to Regan, utilitarianism values the collective interest of individuals more than it values the individual himself and so it could not be used adequately as an ethical framework for animal rights advocacy (Regan 341). Also, utilitarianism could not be relied upon to provide a consistent stand on animal rights advocacy primarily because it is dependent on outcomes; that is the outcomes that would satisfy the majority. Most people, for instance, might perceive killing an animal as satisfying because they see that the benefits exceeds the disadvantages. In such case, utilitarianism justifies cruelty towards animals and is thereby contradictory to the advocacy of animal rights activists. A good end, according to Regan, does not justify the means.
According to Regan, the only morally justified way to view animal rights advocacy is to view it under the light of ‘rights’ ethics. Regan’s ‘rights view’ conforms with Immanuel Kant’s deontological perspective. Kant, for instance, believes that man’s actions or ethical decisions should be governed by good will and not by his ability to rationalize. According to Kant, all the desirable attributes of man such as intelligence, courage, perseverance, etc. would be put to naught unless it is guided by good will (Kant 32). For Kant, the good will is the absolute basis of morality because its goodness does not rely on man’s ability to make conscious choices or to achieve some good ends, but rather, good will is good in itself (Kant 32). As stated by Kant, like a jewel, good will “would still shine by its own light, as a thing which has its own value in itself” (Kant 32). Good will, however, could not be achieved unless there is duty. According to Kant, some people do honest and desirable deeds, not because they find it as an obligation but because they would like to reap the benefits; whether it is recognition or self-satisfaction, most people are inclined to become morally upright because it serves their best interest. Duty, on the other hand, does not concern itself with selfish motives. According to Kant, an action performed by an individual “without any inclination, but simply from duty, then first has his action its genuine moral worth” (Kant 33). Similarly, Regan’s perspective towards duty is unconditional. Just like Kant, Regan is not basing his morality on its outcome, but proposes that people should do good for the sake of goodness itself and not because of its benefits. Most likely influenced by Kant’s moral reasoning, Regan premised that the value of humans is not dependent on his usefulness towards another person. The strength of Regan’s argument lies on his comparison between animals and humans. According to Regan, one cannot argue that animals have no inherent value or less inherent value than human beings because they lack the qualities that humans posses such as intellect, reason or even emotion because it would mean that humans are also willing to do the same with humans that has similar deficiencies. The rights of individuals who does not have an apparent usefulness, for instance, such as the mentally retarded, are still respected not because of their usefulness, but because society has a moral obligation to respect and value their rights since it is the good thing to do. In the same respect, he argued that the value of animal life does not depend on whether they are useful to humans or not. According to Regan, all beings, whether human or animal, has an inherent value that needs to be respected and that it is not morally justified to ignore this value primarily because one does not serve the best interest of another. As stated by Regan, “For either of us to treat the other in ways that fail to show respect for the other's independent value is to act immorally, to violate the individual's rights” (Regan 342). Like Kant, Regan appeals not only to man’s reason, but also to his good will to do what is right and that means putting an end to animal cruelty.
Works Cited
Cudd, A. Contractarianism. 2012. January 2016 <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contractarianism/>.
Kant, E. "Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals." (1785): 31 - 42.
Regan, T. "The Case for Animal Rights." The Moral Status of Animals (1985): 337 - 344.
