Both Peter Singer and Tom Reagan are prominent animal ethics contributors. However, as a function of their different philosophical approaches, differences and similarities exist in their respective contributions. Therefore, it becomes imperative to analyze, contrast, and compare both Practical Ethics by Singer and The Case for Animal Rights by Regan with the aim of identifying the most compelling animal ethics argument.
An apparent difference between the two authors lies in their philosophical approaches to animal rights as Singer is utilitarian while Regan is Kantian in his. In the same way, both arguments are logical and compelling advocates of animal ethics. In Practical Ethics , Singer observes that animals are deserving of equal consideration of interests, a statement implying that animals should access the same care of their welfare as humans (Singer, 2011). Hence, according to Singer, any use of animals that amounts to torture or avoidable suffering is immoral. Basing his position on the principle of equal consideration of interests, Singer (2011) notes that, “But the principle also implies the fact that beings that are not members of our species does not entitle us to exploit them, and similarly the fact the other animals are less intelligent than we are does not mean that their interests may be disregarded.”
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
As mentioned in the preceding paragraph, Regan (2004) presents a Kantian approach and observes that animals should not be treated as means to an end but rather as ends in themselves. Here, his argument is premised on two key concepts, the first is ‘subject-of-a-life’ and inherent value is the other. Conceptually speaking, subject-of-a-life is the foundation of Regan’s interpretation of inherent value. Here, it refers to an animal capable of care of its own welfare and whose sole purpose is not the service of another. Likewise, inherent value here refers to an unearned respect, accessed by all living beings. Regan’s entire argument is premised on his interpretation of inherent value for he argues that because animals possess inherent value, human should stop exploiting them. On inherent value he states, “If individuals have equal inherent value, then any principle that declares what treatment is due them as a matter of justice must take their equal value into account,” (Regan, 2004).
Coincidentally, both arguments observe similarities in that they appreciate the difference between humans and animals. Moreover, they note that humans take advantage of their position in nature’s food chain to exploit animals. According to Singer (2011), it is only human beings that have the requisite moral relevance to determine the amount of pain or pleasure generated in situations. Notably, he introduces the concept of speciesism, a morally indefensible position akin to racism where the interests on the human species attract more gravity than species interests simply because of the difference in species. Therefore, human capacity for moral value coupled with a lack of the same among animals makes the former more morally valuable in Singer’s utilitarian view (Singer, 2011). Notably, these arguments are present in the use of animals for food and scientific experiments. Here, Singer observes that, “There is also a sense in which it is the most basic form of animal use, the foundation stone on which rests the belief that animals exist for our pleasure and convenience” (Singer, 2011).
Contrarily, Regan (2004) holds that it is the individuals rather than the species who are vital to determining the moral value. Moreover, he holds the view that both human and animals share basic properties, with intelligence, memories, and desires as examples of the same. Regan’s argument is comparatively more forceful and inevitably more radical (Regan, 2004). Essentially, he argues for the cessation of all forms of human exploitation of animals, that is, for food, entertainment, clothing, and scientific experimentation. According to Regan, abolitionism is the only cure for the malady that is the treatment of animals like property. To this end he suggests the end of commercial animal husbandry along with commercial and sport hunting (Gruen, 2011). While Singer (2011) notes several reforms made in the use of animals for scientific experiments, Regan (2004) calls for the abolition of the scientific experiments on animals. Here, he cites moral value or the lack of it as the culprit, noting the lack of the same among animals predisposes them to routine violations under the guise of scientific experiments. Critically, Regan holds that the inability of animals to understand human moral values shifts the burden of protection of animals back to humans (Armstrong, & Botzler, 2016).
Another point of similarity between the articles is the reference of abolitionism, though the same is more pronounced in Regan’s argument than it is in Singer’s. Here, the different philosophical approaches are highlighted by the authors different positions on abolitionism. In the previous paragraph it is evident that Regan (2004) seeks to abolish the entire human moral value system. Contrarily, Singer (2011) challenges Regan and other believers in absolute rights with the hypothetical question, “…would the opponent of experimentation be prepared to let thousands die from a terrible disease that could be cured by experimenting on one animal?”. Here, the different approaches to abolitionism and animal rights between the two academics are markedly bare.
An analysis of both essays highlights several similarities and differences in the philosophical approaches to animal rights. The most obvious similarity is that both philosophers advocate for animal rights. According to Singer (2011), animal morals should be a function of pleasure, where an animals’ moral value is determined by its ability to increase happiness. On the other hand, animal beliefs under Regan (2004) calls for the protection of animals on an individual level. Again, these are based on the concept of intrinsic value and the superior moral relevance of the human animal.
Regan observes that humans are obliged to protect animals for they lack the ability to protect themselves, this I find is in order wherever practical. However, the entire abolition of scientific experiments on animals remains unacceptable, to the extent that it endangers, delays, or completely inhibits legitimate scientific breakthroughs. Indeed, both philosophers implicitly ascribe higher moral relevance to the human animal. Therefore, the only argument that is acceptable here is a compromised one, as it combines seemingly attractive features of both articles.
Again, both logicians agree that human animals have a higher moral value and that this position should be used to better effect animal morals. Therefore, a compromise argument- a hybrid of the two articles- is more tenable than accepting either as a stand-alone argument. Regan makes the more forceful and radical argument but the execution of his beliefs requires a complete reengineering of the existing system: a complex undertaking. On the other hand, Singer’s argument acknowledges the importance of gradual changes, but it is also less clear on the procedures. However, the spirit of Singer’s article addresses the need to improve conditions of care for animals in general but also specifically for those selected for scientific experiments. Moreover, the need for improved care of such animals also implies the superior moral position occupied by the human animal, the same position that bestows a duty of protection according to Regan. Put differently, both arguments place the burden of improved care and protection squarely on humanity as a species. Therefore, while there are different approaches to animal ethics, there remains only one major actor yet the duty of execution remains fundamentally intricate.
References
Armstrong, S., L & Botzler, G., R. (2016). London, United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis.
Gruen, L. (2011). Ethics and Animals: An Introduction. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Regan, T. (2004). The Case for Animal Rights. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
Singer, P. (2011). Practical Ethics. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
