An examination and defense of one argument concerning animal rights

Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 22 (1-4):189 – 219 (1979)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

An argument is examined and defended for extending basic moral rights to animals which assumes that humans, including infants and the severely mentally enfeebled, have such rights. It is claimed that this argument proceeds on two fronts, one critical, where proposed criteria of right-possession are rejected, the other constructive, where proposed criteria are examined with a view to determining the most reasonable one. This form of argument is defended against the charge that it is self-defeating, various candidates for the title, 'most reasonable criterion of right-possession', are critically examined, and it is argued that this criterion is to be found in the notion of inherent value: What underlies the ascription of rights to any given x is that x has value logically independently of anyone's valuing x; thus, to treat x as if x had value only if or as it served one's interests, etc., is to violate x 's rights. It is argued that many animals, owing to their being subjects of a life that is more or less valuable for them logically independently of the interests of others, can satisfy this criterion and therefore have certain basic moral rights, if humans, including the severely mentally enfeebled, do. Finally, the question, What basic moral rights do animals have? is explored.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,593

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Animal rights: moral theory and practice.Mark Rowlands - 2009 - New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Animal rights, human wrongs.Tom Regan - 1980 - Environmental Ethics 2 (2):99-120.
Animal rights: a very short introduction.David DeGrazia (ed.) - 2002 - Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Are Animal Rights Inimical to Human Dignity?Karl Schudt - 2003 - Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 77:189-203.
The rights of humans and other animals.Tom Regan - 1997 - Ethics and Behavior 7 (2):103 – 111.
Animal rights: a philosophical defence.Mark Rowlands (ed.) - 1998 - New York: St. Martin's Press.
Moral rights and animals.H. J. McCloskey - 1979 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 22 (1-4):23 – 54.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-03-05

Downloads
120 (#138,738)

6 months
15 (#111,863)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Thomas Regan
Last affiliation: North Carolina State University

Citations of this work

Sentientism, Motivation, and Philosophical Vulcans.Luke Roelofs - 2023 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 104 (2):301-323.
Panpsychism, intuitions, and the great chain of being.Luke Roelofs & Jed Buchanan - 2019 - Philosophical Studies 176 (11):2991-3017.
Moral Considerability and the Argument from Relevance.Oscar Horta - 2018 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 31 (3):369-388.
Is the argument from marginal cases obtuse?Daniel A. Dombrowski - 2006 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 23 (2):223–232.

View all 16 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

Animal Liberation.Peter Singer (ed.) - 1977 - Avon Books.
Animal Rights and Human Obligations.Tom Regan & Peter Singer (eds.) - 1989 - Cambridge University Press.
Animal Rights.Jan Narveson - 1977 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 7 (1):161 - 178.
The Moral Basis of Vegetarianism.Tom Regan - 1975 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 5 (2):181 - 214.
Kant's Treatment of Animals.Alexander Broadie & Elizabeth M. Pybus - 1974 - Philosophy 49 (190):375 - 383.

View all 9 references / Add more references