Tibor R. Machan: The Myth of Animal Rights 1/5

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

The Myth of Animal Rights (Part 1 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

[utubephilosopher]

Once again, Thanks man.

[rainerebert]

You are welcome!

[beaelliott]

I quit! His style is torturous - I'm certain I disagree with him after the use of his term of viewing animals as "perspective nurishment". If you've got a problem saying the word *meat* or *flesh* because it's really what it is - and it's so awful... You can't argue a single step passed that. Thankfully the cause and arguments for Animal Rights are in much more capable hands and minds than this bozo - Go Vegan.

[DanielALomax]

What's meaningless about "animal guilt"? There's no categorical mistake there.

Singer doesn't use "right" in the Lockean sense; he simply uses it to mean, whatever "should" be done.

As Bentham said, the question is not "can they talk?" or "can they reason?"; it is "can they suffer?". You can espouse as much political theory as you like, but if you don't mind the intense suffering inflicting on animals, it is simply due to a lack of empathy.

[thedingfoundation]

@itchynights i don't think you need a rights theory to show that killing animals is wrong, i think you need compassion, and that is an experience, the best thing is to witness, inform of facts, and provide visual evidence and documentation. You can't tell others what to think they have to do it for themselves.

[thedingfoundation]

i agree i think the whole argument of rights goes round in circles, anyone who knows the facts, or even some of them, and has had the pain of viewing documentary evidence, knows that this is really a question of morality, and not rights. Pain is pain. suffering is suffering and brutality is brutality. Animals have been our slaves for 100's if not thousand of years, they are the hand that feeds us, and we show them no thanks.

[itchynights]

@philnoll

i'm sure your own heart is fine :)

[philnoll]

@itchynights So its Singer I should be listening to? 

[itchynights]

@philnoll

i doubt that. peter singer has arguably done more for nonhuman animals than anyone else, ever, and he does not take a rights-based approach.

if you recognize a being can live a pleasurable life, there are certain actions that thereafter follow if you want to act morally. you don't need rights to respect sentience and sentient life.

[philnoll]

@itchynights Yeah, but you need rights theory if you're going to convince others that killing animals is wrong.

[philnoll]

Why 30 dislikes? Whether you agree with the speaker or not, you should give a thumbs up to the user who uploaded this material and other lectures on animal rights.

[DiogenesofMilwaukee]

@ashcangrind It is apparent you haven't read Singer because in the very beginning of Animal Liberation he addresses that point. Leaving that aside, I find it very amusing that you lump all non-humans into the same cognitive, physiological, and emotive realm of insects.Do you think a pig is more similar to a moth or human? What about a chimpanzee?Change your though experiment to a normal adult pig, or an irreversibly brain damaged infant whose cognitive capacities will never surpass a normal pig.

[itchynights]

i don't need rights theory to know why killing a human is wrong.

same story for nonhuman animals.

this guy's as boring as regan.

[Mike10four]

When using science to prove our unalienable Rights are from the Laws of Nature, it becomes clear these Rights apply to all Life, from bacteria to humans, and Social systems, including Charles Darwin’s research; as in some Grand Unification principle for all Living-systems (see my channel video). Most realize the Laws of Nature trumps mortals in power; a new understanding of these Rights may help make this world a better place to live