Navigation
Examining the moral status of non-human animals and the arguments for and against their rights.
If an advanced alien species arrived on Earth and decided to farm humans because they were more 'intelligent,' what logical argument could we use to stop them without being hypocrites?
In 1975, philosopher Peter Singer popularized the term speciesism: a prejudice or bias in favor of the interests of members of one's own species and against those of members of other species. Singer argues that just as racism and sexism are morally wrong because they ignore the principle of equality, speciesism is wrong because it ignores the Principle of Equal Consideration of Interests. This principle states that we should give equal weight to the like interests of all beings affected by our actions. For Singer, the only 'boundary of concern' that matters is sentience—the capacity to suffer or experience enjoyment. If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration.
1. Consider kicking a stone down the road. The stone has no 'interests' because it cannot suffer. 2. Consider kicking a mouse. The mouse has an interest in not being kicked because it feels pain. 3. According to Singer, the mouse's interest in avoiding pain is equal to a human's interest in avoiding that same level of pain, regardless of their species.
Quick Check
According to Peter Singer, what is the 'only defensible boundary' for moral consideration?
Answer
Sentience (the capacity to suffer or experience pleasure).
While Singer is a utilitarian (focusing on minimizing total suffering), Tom Regan argues for a deontological (rights-based) approach. Regan argues that animals have inherent value because they are 'subjects-of-a-life.' This means they have beliefs, desires, a sense of the future, and an emotional life that matters to them, regardless of their usefulness to humans. While a utilitarian might allow an animal to suffer if it saved 1,000 humans (a calculation of ), Regan argues that because animals have rights, it is always wrong to treat them as mere 'tools' or 'resources,' even if the outcome is beneficial to the majority.
Scenario: A scientist wants to test a new vaccine on 50 chimpanzees to potentially save 50,000 humans. 1. Singer's View: Might permit it if the total reduction in human suffering outweighs the suffering of the chimps. 2. Regan's View: Would forbid it. He argues that the chimps' rights are being violated by treating them as a means to an end, which is morally impermissible regardless of the math.
Quick Check
What is the primary difference between how a utilitarian and a rights-theorist views an animal?
Answer
A utilitarian views animals as 'containers' of pleasure/pain to be balanced, while a rights-theorist views them as having inherent value that cannot be traded for the 'greater good.'
Critics often argue that humans deserve more rights because we are more intelligent or rational. Philosophers counter this with the Argument from Marginal Cases. They point out that some humans (infants, the severely cognitively disabled, or those with advanced dementia) may lack the 'rationality' or 'language' we claim makes us superior to animals. If we grant these 'marginal' humans rights based on their sentience or inherent value, then to be logically consistent, we must grant those same rights to animals with similar or higher cognitive capacities. To deny animals while protecting these humans is, by definition, speciesism.
A lifeboat is sinking. You must throw one occupant overboard to save the rest. The occupants are a healthy dog and a human in a permanent vegetative state with no cognitive function. 1. If you choose the dog based on 'intelligence,' you contradict the idea that all humans have equal rights regardless of IQ. 2. If you choose the human, you acknowledge that 'species' alone isn't the deciding factor. 3. This forces us to define exactly which 'property' () makes a life valuable: .
Which philosopher is most associated with the 'subject-of-a-life' argument?
If a utilitarian determines that the pain of 10 cows in a factory farm is and the pleasure of 1,000 humans eating them is , they would support the farm only if:
The 'Argument from Marginal Cases' is used to prove that animals are more intelligent than humans.
Review Tomorrow
In 24 hours, try to explain the 'Argument from Marginal Cases' to a friend or write it down from memory.
Practice Activity
Next time you see an animal product or a product tested on animals, ask yourself: 'Would this be ethical if the subject were a human with the same cognitive capacity as this animal?'