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

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

The Myth of Animal Rights (Part 5 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

[HumidNightblueFruit]

Wow! I watched all 5! I am a vegan, and an adherent of Tom Regan's animal rights philosophy, but am still unconvinced by Professor Machan. He briefly addresses why infants have the potential to become moral agents and not just moral patients, but this doesn't address all people, such as feral children who have no capacity to learn language, and the implication is that they have no rights. Machan's rights seem arbitrary. Is the right to live the same level as the right to play soccer?

[SourAlex85]

I am interested in your personal stance on the treatment of animals, and whether you disagree with animal welfare as well.