Tibor R. Machan: The Myth of Animal Rights 3/5

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

The Myth of Animal Rights (Part 3 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

[kratzbuerste87]

how come anti-animal-rights philosophers and activists tend to have this hue of arrogance about them...? Just look at some of their videos trying to make a case for the superiority of humans / our "necessity" of treating animals the way we do. Perhaps some are in need of an ideology to push their human ego?

[kratzbuerste87]

@pablo4115 ... if his line of argument was to be consistent, shouldn't he be against taking into account the possibility of a defendant's diminished responsibility? I wonder which position he would take in such a case without revealing the defectiveness of his pseudo-theory?

[kratzbuerste87]

@pablo4115: well, because he's a speciesist. And the funny thing is that once you cut out this unfounded generalisation, there is not much of an argument left to justify his claims. The only claim you may base such an assumption on would be a religious one, and that for ME isn't valid. By the way, I don't know whether your "murder" argument is that convincing. He insists on the fact that people CAN make choices; so they can be made responsible for certain ACTS; but...

[ryan84160]

@tohidefromourways Are you a christian ?

[pablo4115]

He seems to wish to say that human beings who are not moral agents have rights because they are human beings and for the most part human beings are moral agents. This makes no sense to me. For the most part human beings are innocent of murder but we don't think that this warrants treating all human beings as innocent of murder. Clearly some are guilty and ought to be treated unlike the majority. So, why wouldn't he advocate denying rights to those human beings who are not moral agents?

[tohidefromourways]

What a callous and corrupt corporate greed ideology this series of videos are; as if we are to receive mercy from God, we must show ourselves to be deserving by treating animals and all creatures with great respect Like God wants to us. BY not doing this, we abandon his mercy, but we must never let ourselves fall to temptation of lust, or ideology. We will never prosper unless we truly show ourselves to be good as God is good and be just and righteous in all ways, just as God is. We are doomed..