Animal Welfare

Peter Singer, Animal Liberation

1792 Mary Wollstonecraft Vindication of the Rights of Women

Thomas Taylor, A Vindication of the Rights of Brutes

1. If we grant rights to women, we should grant rights to animals too.

2. Granting rights to animals would be ridiculous!

"All humans are equal."

Fact vs. Moral Ideal

Description vs. Prescription

Racism -- a prejudice or attitude of bias toward the interests of members of one's own race and against those members of other races.

Sexism -- a prejudice or attitude of bias toward the interests of members of one's own gender and against those members of the other gender.

Speciesism -- a prejudice or attitude of bias toward the interests of members of one's own species and against those members of other species (p. 84).

Tom Reagan, The Case for Animal Rights

duties

-- direct

-- indirect

Theories of morality

What do they imply about animal rights?

Are they good theories?

1. Contractarianism

2. Virtue Ethics (Cruelty/Kindness View)

3. Utilitarianism

4. Inherent Value / Rights View

Cohen, "The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research"

Cohen considers 2 arguments against experimentation on animals and rejects them.

I. It violates animal's rights (Reagan)

II. It imposes avoidable suffering (Singer)

Cohen's replies:

I. Animals don't have rights.

1. To have a right is to have a claim against another.

2. Certain capacities are necessary in order to have a claim against another.

3. Animals don't have these capacities

Other formulation of Cohen's argument:

P is necessary for Q --> If something has Q, you know it must have P

Gasoline is necessary for car running --> If the car is running, it has gasoline.

(Not sequence of events, or cause and effect.)

Certain are capacities necessary for rights --> If x has rights, x has those capacities.

1. If x has rights, then x can make claims against other members of a moral community.

2. If x can make claims against other members of a moral community, then x has a capacity for free moral judgment.

3. Animals do not have a capacity for free moral judgment.

1. If P, then Q.

2. If Q, then R.

3. ~R

Objections: Question premises:

#3

#1 -- Brain damaged, comatose, and senile have rights, but cannot make claims.

Response:

It is the kind (species) that counts.

So perhaps we should substitute for #1

1* If x has rights, then x belongs to a species S, such that most members of S can make claims against other members of a moral community.

(In order to have rights, one must be a member of a species whose members generally can make moral claims.)

What do you think of 1*?

II. Utilitarian argument against experimentation on animals.

1. An act is right if it produces the greatest net balance of pleasure over pain than any alternative action. Otherwise, it is wrong.

2. Experimenting on animals produces a greater balance of pain over pleasure than alternative actions.

Cohen's replies

1. Even if we should balance human and non-human pain, not clear how it would come out.

Animal experimentation might be justified any way.

We have to weigh costs of discontinuing experiments, such as suffering from uncured diseases, etc.

These animals might not have existed if not raised for experiments.

2. The utilitarian argument assumes all animals have equal moral standing, but that's false.

Human suffering matters more than animal suffering.