Egalitarian Animal Rights Activism: Singer and Regan’s Earth Wisdom

“The Question is not, Can they reason? Nor Can they talk? But, Can they suffer?”- Jeremy Bentham

(Image. the March and the Blessing. Google Images, Public Domain) 

 In my previous blog post, “Speciesism in Industrial Agriculture”, I briefly touched upon the different criterion of moral standing as they relate to the treatment of animals and their exploitation for food, fashion, entertainment, and science/medicine. I have previously examined the 3 main Environmental worldviews in general, and now I will briefly put them into the context of animal rights specifically to help frame the rest of this entry. Industrial agriculture as demonstrated by the film Earthlingoperates under a Planetary Management worldview which is anthropocentric, does not give moral standing to anything nonhuman, and thus human moral agents do not have any duty to animals. Some animal rights activists who oppose these current practices hold a Stewardship worldview, which is a weaker form of anthropocentrism which gives humans indirect duties to animals, meaning that we owe nothing to them/can do nothing that wrongs them, but it is our duty not to involve them in ourwrong acts. The two philosophers I will now examine are Peter Singer and Tom Regan, both supporters of the third worldview of Earth Wisdom, which is biocentric or earth-centric and holds that all life is interdependent. To be more specific, Singer and Regan, through different approaches, support the ideology of moral egalitarianism, which means, in the context of Earth Wisdom, that all life have equal and fundamental moral standing.

First, Peter Singer, an Australian theorist of ethics, cites and extends utilitarian ethics in his approach to animal rights in his writing “Animal Liberation”. His central principle of ethics is the “greatest happiness” principle held by other utilitarian philosophers like John Stewart Mill and Jeremy Bentham. The principle which is that whatever is best to do is what creates the most happiness/pleasure and eliminates the most pain/suffering. Singer widens the scope of this principle, which is normally anthropocentric, to include all animals. He states that humans are clearly not factually equal to animals in the respect to intelligence, ability/capacity for reason and leadership etc., but this does not mean that they are not morally equal. Humans are not factually equal to other humans (there are humans with lower intellectual and physical capabilities), and it does not make logical sense to give moral standing to those less intelligent humans and not animals who excel at a different type of intelligence. Thus, Singer says that “If possessing greater intelligence does not entitle one human to exploit another, why should it entitle humans to exploit nonhumans?” (VanDeVeer, p136). He does hold that there should be different moral standing for humans and other humans andanimals. This does not mean he is in favor of speciesism because, despite the differences in capabilities between and within species, the moral standing of all animals should be equally important.

“If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration, and, indeed, to count it equally with the like suffering (if rough comparisons can be made) of any other being”- Peter Singer, “Animal Liberation”

(Image. Humans conquer animals. Google Images, Public Domain) 

Singer’s assertion above which considers all beings, human and nonhuman, aligns with Bentham and Utilitarianism. One could argue that pain can never be observed directly or proven in nonhuman animals, but Singer addresses this with a line of logic similar to the one above which uses how humans treat other humans as an example. If we cannot directly/definitively observe pain but regularly infer that other humans feel pain through external indications, this inference can be applied to animals. It is for all of these reasons that Singer opposes any exploitation of nonhumans, even if it is “humane”, because humans would still be viewing nonhumans as means and not ends in themselves. As a result, he is a vegetarian/vegan and suggests a reordering of attitude/way of life with everyone ultimately becoming vegetarian/vegan.

This brings us to the second philosopher, Tom Regan, another animal rights activist who extends Kant’s duty and right based ethics into his philosophy in The Case for Animal Rights, which widely thought to be one of his greatest works. He makes use of the 2^ndformulation of Kant’s Categorical Imperative, which is that at the root of a rational beings’ value and should dictate all maxims is the imperative that the being is naturally an end in and of itself. Regan holds that this can be extended to cover animal and human rights. His own edit to Kant is that the ability to reason is not necessary for a being to have inherent value. Any sentient being which is an “experiencing subject of a life” should have moral standing regardless of usefulness to others. This is different from other Earth Wisdom philosophies like Leopold, because while he values nature with equal import because of interconnectedness and interdependence, not for an intrinsic value of an individual alone.

“To be ‘for animals’ is not to be ‘against humanity.’ To require others to treat animals justly, as their rights require, is not to ask for anything more nor less in their case than in the case of any human to whom just treatment is due. The animal rights movement is a part of, not opposed to, the human rights movement. Attempts to dismiss it as anti-human are mere rhetoric.” – Tom Regan

(Image. Intersectional Justice. Google Images, Public Domain)

Considering the two, I am more convinced by and personally in favor of Regan’s approach. Singer’s vegetarian/vegan ideal is practically unattainable, and actually sees humans as a means to an end- the greatest overall happiness- because they are rational beings with a power to ensure/protect the moral standing of humans/animals. Regan is against utilitarianism being considered an applicable theory to animal/human rights activism and the determination of moral standing. Regan thinks, and I agree, that the egalitarian utilitarian values moral equality which achieves the satisfaction of every individual’s interests and that action which is ideal brings about the most pleasurable consequences; the implementation of this requires some sort of “adding up” process which no utilitarian has been able to devise. Singer admits this shortcoming of his stance, but claims that despite his lack of an implementable plan to handle conflicts of interest, He at least enters the consideration that animals can have interests (VanDeVeer, p142). I prefer Regan because he proposes both the philosophical thoughts which need to be adopted for action to progress/succeed, as well concrete rules and abolitionist stances that can be taken in conflicts of interest.

 

 

Word Count: 1208

2-line Discussion Question: Singer and Regan are concerned with changing ethical values/thoughts in order to dictate animal rights activism, but they both have, at times, unclear suggestions for possible progress. Is there a hint of an “adding up” process hinted at by Singer, or another Utilitarian thinker? Do Regan’s sentient being/ “experiencing subject of life” criterion moral standing extend to include plant life?

Citations:

Regan, Tom. The Case for Human Rights. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983.

Singer, Peter. “Animal Liberation”. Animals, Men, and Morals. Harris, Stanley; Godlovich, Roslind; Harris, John (eds.). Nyrev, Inc. 1973.

VanDeVeer, Donald, Pierce, Christine. The Environmental Ethics and Policy Book, 3^rdedition. Thompson & Wadsworth. 2003.