Tibor R. Machan: The Myth of Animal Rights 2/5

Professor Tibor R. Machan, PhD, Philosopher, Chapman University, California, USA

The Myth of Animal Rights (Part 2 of 5)

13 July 2007, University of Heidelberg

In the concern about how human beings treat animals, whether as pets, as prospective nourishment, or for medical research or experimentation, one school has proposed the idea that animals have rights like human beings do (Tom Regan, The Case of Animals Rights, 1984), while another school has proposed that the well being of animals should be considered in a utilitarian assessment of how they ought to be treated (Singer, Animal Liberation, 1975). I aim to argue here that the concept of "rights" has not be shown to apply to animals in anything like the way it applies to human beings. Looking at the conceptual foundation of basic rights, especially a la John Locke, rights are founded on the moral nature of human beings, specifically on their moral agency. They identify, as the late Robert Nozick put it, our moral space. Given that animals have not been shown to possess moral agency, the basis of ascribing to them rights of the sort human beings possess is lacking. As to the utilitarian case associated with Peter Singer, I will only mention, briefly, that Singer's ultimate foundation for ethics does not support any kind of normative stance toward animals, given that he is fundamentally a non-cognitivist or conventionalist. I shall develop these ideas and consider some objections to my position.

http://www.vorlesungen-tierrechte.de
http://www.rainerebert.de

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Tibor
• Machan
• Peter
• Singer
• Tom
• Regan
• Robert
• Nozick
• Welfare
• Philosophy
• Animal
• Rights
• Ethics
• Tierrechte
• Humanities
• Lecture

[polymath7]

Mindless. Fucking mindless.

If you ever had occasion to wonder what is the *exact minimum* level of intelligence that is required to obtain a PhD in philosophy, and just how modest and insignificant such an achievement can be made to seem, look at the screen.

[dangeresque429]

@JoeJC Establishing the nature of rights in general isn't of central importance to the animal rights debate? As Dr. Machan mentions early in his talk, a belief in animal rights is a categorical mistake, so discussing what the categories are is the only thing there is to talk about.

[JoeJC]

Is this a lecture on classical liberalism or animal rights? 20 minutes in and he has not moved on to the central issue of the debate. I have noticed that the anti-animal rights debaters on YouTube drone on and on about issues which are not of central importance to the animal rights debate.

[like2bonree]

many applauses for a video containing a true higher order of thinking!!

[theshitdontstick]

this guy is stupid.