Tibor R. Machan: The Myth of Animal Rights 4/5

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

The Myth of Animal Rights (Part 4 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

[pablo4115]

@mthome21

He addresses the issue of people who are not moral agents. Maybe in part 3. It's pretty unclear and seems to amount to saying that there's no clear cut-off between people who are certainly agents and those who are not. This simply dodges the issue since beyond this 'gray' area there are people who are certainly not agents and are not treated as such - e.g. they are not punished, etc.

[minhalinda1963]

Dr. Pin head

[JoeJC]

Comparing a dog to a painting is ridiculous. A 10 year old child would know that the comparison has no basis in reality. A painting is not conscious, does not have a mind. A dog does. The dog feels pain, displays a variety of emotions, has a memory, and has interests and desires. The dog is a living individual; the painting is not.

[mthome21]

Rights, moral and ethics do not have anything to do with capacity of thinking, but feeling and suffering!

[mthome21]

Pretty weak arguments, considering this is a "PhD"!

A picture does not feel pain, Professor! Think!

Animals, independly of the taxonomy, do!

Beyond, there are plenty of human individuals who do not have the capacity of being a moral agent and yet they are taken care ands have rights.

Small children and mentally disabled people do not have to have a "VOICE" to call for their rights, in order to HAVE their rights. There are others who will be the spokespersons for them.

[johnnycon]

Good vid.