Animal Rights Bill - Tom Regan summing up

Does the Animal Kingdom need a Bill of Rights? The question poised at a debate at the Royal institute (UK) in 1989. This is my last vid of the debate and features remarks made by the opposition. Mary Warnock a philosopher from Cambridge University (yes Cambridge). Stephen Rose Professor of Biology Who works for the British medical and Science council and Germaine Greer writer, femminist. These people are all Phds, the best the anti Animal Rights brigade could muster. Watch and enjoy how the famous American Philosopher Dr Tom Regan destroys their arguments.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Animal
• Rights
• Bill
• Tom
• Regan
• Philosophy
• Biology
• Debate
• Compassion
• Vegetarianism
• Logic
• Thinking
• Argue
• Law

[hello030178]

this is typical higher education - pontification and competition of hubris with no practical application to speak to the masses responsible for change. bah!

[conn6m]

Well I consider myself one of the masses and I can understand them all ok. Perhaps you think all intellegent debate should be dumbed down. Hey why stop there, lets dumb down the Arts, Science etc. Everything to the level of the Sun 'newspaper' (or comic if you are from Liverpool)

People are all individuals, not sheep. If interested in something, they can learn and be rewarded by that learning.

[jodyrea]

ALF is to the animals rescued from Huntington Life Science as the underground railway was to slaves - both deemed illegal. Man thought nothing of threatening man like we treat animals today during slavery. Speceism and the followers are the KKK of the Animal rights debate. KKK look at all the lynch mobs. KKK and Huntington Life are like partners in crime. Lets have a lynching. What beagle should we torture and hang today?

[conn6m]

Well, I must admit the view of your son calling 911 over a birthday present made me laugh. I don't think we are that liberal over here. In Britain we have two numbers one for immediate real emergency and one non emergency. I don't think we should consider Rights as cast in stone. The Americans (USA) has in its constitution the right for persons to carry Guns. The appalling consequences of this causes the death of thousands of U.S citizens every year. Perhaps some rights should be revoked.

[wwohlgem]

We accord humans natural rights because they are conscious and can suffer, and not for any other reason. Most other animals are conscious and can suffer, therefore they have also a natural right by the same reasoning. To say otherwise is to discriminate arbitrarily.

[atentso]

Wow. I'm an animal rights guy, though I admit there are some challenging arguments against my position. They did not come from these people. Couldn't they have held the debate against legitimate philosophers and not idiots like Germane Greer?

[welsh22princess3]

Species loyalty X-D hehehe a hilariously terrible phrase

[rongovrongov]

i'm looking for the whole debate for a project i'm doing. either on video or written transcript

[lukebeevers93]

Tom Regan beats the anti-animal rights people into a cocked hat. What the fuck is Germaine Greer doing in an animal rights debate anyway? There was me thinking she wasn't a philosopher but a playwright

[NEUHEITEN100]

Tom Regan is one of the most important thinkers of our time!

[Plushcat143]

Bravo Dr. Regan! You are a remarkable man and a true inspiration!

[Olivia2Oscar]

Yes, NorthernLight12, you are right: Tom is brave, and yes, we will get there.

Morality is the treatment of all other beings as we want to be treated. Immorality is the inability to see others through the same lens that we see ourselves. Tom Regan stomped his heel on immorality in his closing arguments. But the opposition didn't feel crushed, because they have not yet replaced their hubris with meekness. "Pride goeth before the fall."

[smokeybiut]

Rights is a human thing. Why do animals have to follow are way of life. Lets just respect them and leave them alone. They don't want rights, just peace and the pursuit of happiness. Meaning, leave them the hell alone or else.

[andycorreia]

(continued)

My position is that humans are a pretty unique and intelligent species but not superior. So, although not all legal human rights apply to other animals, at least the legal right to freedom and protection from easily avoidable harm done by humans should be granted.

Of course this implies that non human animals shouldn't be exploited in any way in a civilized society, including for eating, wearing or entertainment.

[andycorreia]

There are at least 2 meanings for the word rights.

Philosophical/ethical rights and legal rights.

Every country has different legal rights, but philosophical/ethical rights don't change from country to country. They may change from person to person or they may not change at all, it's a philosophical debate. My position is that humans are a pretty unique and intelligent species but not superior.