Tibor R. Machan: The Myth of Animal Rights 1/5
BackProfessor 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.
Channel: Education
Uploaded: March 18, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Author: rainerebert
Length: 00:09:56
Rating: 3.21
Views: 1275
Tags: Tibor Machan Peter Singer Tom Regan Robert Nozick Welfare Philosophy Animal Rights Ethics Tierrechte Humanities Lecture
Video Comments:
illidan333 (June 17, 2008 at 9:27 am)
An argument against this theory is to say that the human Well-being are more important than animals Well-being because they are Rational.
DanielALomax (April 1, 2008 at 8:08 pm)
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.
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.
Makyui (April 9, 2008 at 2:18 pm)
Animal suffering isn't a rights concern, though, but a welfare one. We can give animal welfare consideration without having to give them rights.
For that matter, animal welfare isn't automatically included in the concept of rights. "Animal rights" fully allows animal suffering, so long as it isn't at the hands of humans.
For that matter, animal welfare isn't automatically included in the concept of rights. "Animal rights" fully allows animal suffering, so long as it isn't at the hands of humans.
DanielALomax (April 9, 2008 at 2:24 pm)
I agree, but Machan is pretending he's dispelling Singer's theory; he's not. He's just missing the point of it. People like Machan are just looking for excuses to abuse animals, because it makes life easier for themselves. It doesn't matter whether an individual can comply to the social contract; making that individual suffer is cruel nonetheless.
utubephilosopher (March 22, 2008 at 3:32 am)
Once again, Thanks man.
rainerebert (March 22, 2008 at 2:47 pm)
You are welcome!
So I'll have some babies and retarded people for dinner, should be okay with that guy ^^