If a fish is not conscious, it has no rights, and if it is, its rights equal mine, even though its consiousness may be so marginal that we are extremely uncertain whether it even exists. Instead, for any consciousness-based rights system to be funcitonal, it must be based on DEGREE of consciousness, so a fish has less rights than a mouse, who has less rights than a mature human.
The second objection is that this scheme takes no account of the welfare of future beings. But an ethics which cannot provide a rationale to prevent future ecosystem destruction, or to prevent mass extinctions say by a comet impact years in the future of individuals who are not alive today and therefore do not compute for rights calculations is deeply flawed in providing moral guidance. These weaknesses are correctable, and this work could be improved to become a fairly compelling and general moral guideline. But to do so will result in drastically weakening the justification for animal welfare in his work, so I expect they will not be adressed, and this work will remain an interesting, but ulimately unconvincing excercise, serving solely to rally the faithful.
Beats the heck out of Peter Singer Published by Thriftbooks.
The Case for Animal Rights by Tom Regan
But Tom Regan's now-classic book -- this one -- is a different story. This is a tour-de-force of ethical argumentation that makes the titular case about as well as it's ever going to be made. Regan doesn't simplify any issues and he's very much alive to fine ethical nuances. And he sets out his case with both rigor and vigor. So for completeness, Regan begins with a careful discussion of the question.
Compare Tom Regan, Carl Cohen and Peter Singer in Terms of Animal Rights
Avoiding simplistic answers and over-eager claims about research on e. Some of his arguments are a bit weaker than he thinks they are, although I still agree with his conclusions. For example, he argues that possession of language skills can't be an indicator of consciousness because human infants are presumably conscious before they acquire a language; how else, indeed, would they acquire it?
As I said, though, I agree with his conclusion; I'm merely criticizing the way he gets to it.
See a Problem?
The remainder of the book is a wide-ranging discussion, not just of animal rights, but of ethics generally. Even aside from Regan's nominal topic, the volume could serve as a fine introduction to ethical thought in general. Among its many highlights: a short refutation of Jan Narveson's "rational egoism" that could double as a refutation of Ayn Rand's even sillier version. In the end, what this gets us is a careful case for regarding mammalian animals which are at least a year old as possessors of "rights.
These "rights" do not, he holds, trump every other ethical consideration under the sun; in particular, in emergency situations in which either say a human being or a dog or a million dogs must be killed, we should kill the dog or dogs every time. And with most of what he says on this subject, I heartily agree; in particular I think he has made just the right distinction between moral agents and moral patients, and c. A Classic!!! Published by Thriftbooks. Warning: this book is not for people new to ethical philosophy or philosophy in general. Try Singer's book for an introduction to some of the themes discussed in this book.
Essential reading for those tired of hearing the same old recycled arguments used to justify the torture and murder of sentient living creatures.
The Difference in Tom Regan's and Peter Singer's Positon on Animal Rights
As such, it appeals to two groups of people: 1 those who are already living or considering adopting an ethical lifestyle and 2 those interested in philosophy, especially ethical philosophy. The best discussion of animal rights. This book accomplishes two goals: First, it is the best available discussion of the many aspects of animal welfare. Second, it is an excellent example of a fine philosophical mind grappling with a difficult issue.
- essays on malcolm x and martin luther king.
- On Animal Rights: Tom Regan or Carl Cohen?.
- which of the following would make a good thesis statement for an essay about the play oedipus rex.
- european policy research paper.
I think we may have touched on this topic in class. I think Regan would disprove of domestication of animals pets because it is infringing on their rights to freedom.
Your email address will not be published. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. Home Sample Page.
- fukuyama end of history essay 1989!
- Sample Essay on Tom Regan’s Case for Animal Rights - Essay Writing Help.
- The Case for Animal Rights - Wikipedia;
- thesis of english linguistics.
Leave a Reply Cancel reply Your email address will not be published. I help with my top thesis regard myself as an advocate of animal rights — as a part of the animal rights movement. Fox M. The Case for Animal Rights is een vakfilosofisch boek, qua The close relationship i have with my parents grondigheid en opbouw. Animal rights, moral or legal entitlements attributed to nonhuman animals, usually because of the complexity of their cognitive, emotional, and social lives or their capacity to experience physical or custom cheap essay ghostwriters website for masters emotional the case for animal rights by tom regan pain or pleasure A defesa dos direitos dos animais , assim como a dos professional personal statement ghostwriters websites for phd direitos animais [carece de fontes?