rights: The Rights-Based Approach to Animal Ethics Flashcards
This deck parallels the briefing at vbriefings.org/rights
About this Deck: “The Rights-Based Approach to Animal Ethics”.
This Deck parallels the briefing at: vbriefings.org/rights.
—There are no formal citations here, although sources may be mentioned. Full citations with links are provided in the briefing.
—It would be best to read the briefing before studying these cards. Reading the briefing first provides understanding and context.
What is the briefing titled “The Rights-Based Approach to Animal Ethics” about?
This briefing summarizes the key concepts of animal rights philosophy as espoused by philosopher Tom Regan.
Provide a high-level summary of the rights briefing.
Animal rights philosophy, shaped significantly by Tom Regan, emphasizes animals’ inherent value and moral status, independent of their utility to humans. This perspective prioritizes the inviolable rights of individual animals as a matter of justice.
The perceived lack of moral agency in nonhuman animals does not diminish their rights, just as the rights of individuals with intellectual disabilities are recognized and upheld despite similar limitations.
Provide some context for the rights briefing.
Animal rights is only one of several philosophical approaches to animal ethics. Some of the others are utilitarianism, virtue ethics, and ethics of care. We will summarize these other approaches in other briefings.
Note: At vBriefings, we generally favor the rights-based approach to animal ethics, while recognizing that some of the other ethical frameworks, if followed to their logical conclusion, could also lead to the position of ending animal exploitation.
The term animal rights is often used to describe a general concern for animals, rather than the rights-based philosophy that rejects all forms of exploitation.
Animal rights philosophy challenges traditional ethical frameworks and expands the sphere of moral consideration.
By arguing for the inclusion of animals in our moral circle, animal rights philosophy prompts a reevaluation of long-held ethical principles and practices. This expansion of moral consideration has implications not just for our treatment of animals, but for our understanding of ethics as a whole.
Name 5 key concepts of Tom Regan’s animal rights philosophy?
- Animals have inherent value and moral status independent of their utility to humans.
- Animal rights philosophy emphasizes respect for individual animals rather than aggregate welfare.
- The concept of “subjects-of-a-life” provides a basis for ascribing rights to other animals.
- The right to be treated respectfully is a matter of justice.
- Animals’ inability to be moral agents doesn’t diminish their rights.
Tell me about the principle of inherent worth in animal rights philosophy.
This principle asserts that animals are not merely resources for human use but have inherent worth because they have morally significant experiences, desires, and lives.
It challenges traditional anthropocentric views and forms the basis for extending moral consideration to animals.
How does animal rights philosophy differ from utilitarianism?
This approach, exemplified by Regan’s work, contrasts with utilitarian perspectives by focusing on the inviolable rights of individual animals rather than on maximizing overall welfare or happiness.
It argues that the rights of individuals should not be sacrificed for the greater good.
Describe Regan’s “subjects-of-a-life” concept.
(rights briefing)
Regan argues that beings who are “subjects-of-a-life”—those with beliefs, desires, perception, memory, a sense of the future, an emotional life, preferences, welfare interests, and psychophysical identity over time—have inherent value and, consequently, rights.
According to Tom Regan, what kind of rights do animals have?
Regan argued that animals have inherent value and moral rights, including the right to be treated with respect and to live without human oppression.
Is it a question of kindness or compassion to treat animals with respect?
(rights briefing)
No. Regan believed it is not a question of kindness or compassion to treat animals respectfully; it is an act of justice.
Explain Regan’s view of moral agents vs moral patients.
Tom Regan distinguishes between moral agents, who can make moral decisions, and moral patients, who cannot but still deserve moral consideration.
While humans are moral agents, animals are moral patients since they can be harmed by others’ actions but may lack the ability to make moral judgments.
Regan argues that animals’ inability to be moral agents doesn’t diminish their inherent value or rights. Like humans, their capacity to experience life and suffering qualifies them for moral protection. Some individuals with intellectual disabilities may not be moral agents, yet their rights are still recognized and protected.
What might Regan say to the claim that cognitive differences between humans and most animals are morally relevant and justify different treatment?
Regan (and others) have not argued that humans and other animals be treated exactly the same or have exactly the same rights.
Regan points out that some humans (e.g., infants, severely cognitively impaired individuals) have lower cognitive capacities than some animals, yet we still grant them full moral status. Therefore, cognitive capacity alone cannot be the basis for moral consideration.
What’s Tom Regan’s definition of a right?
For Tom Regan, a “right” is a moral protection of an individual’s inherent interests, such as the interest in avoiding harm or exploitation.
It is based on the idea that beings with inherent value—whether human or nonhuman—are entitled to have their fundamental interests respected and safeguarded, regardless of others’ desires or needs.
What was perhaps Regan’s most famous animal rights speech?
Tom Regan’s 1989 speech at the Royal Institute of Great Britain. The briefing includes a link to the YouTube video and the full transcript.
What is Regan’s seminal work on animal rights philosophy?
His book, The Case for Animal Rights (1983).
For an easier to read, less rigorous treatment of his philosophy, see his Defending Animal Rights (2000) or Animal Rights Human Wrongs (2003).
What are some general tips for discussing animal rights philosophy?
Animal rights philosophy strengthens the case for veganism, and is helpful in discussions with any audience that values the exploration of ideas.
Gauge your audience. It may be best to not delve too deeply into the topic unless your audience is well-versed in philosophy or interested in exploring it further. This is because you might come across as overly academic or as if you think you’re intellectually superior.
That said, the author’s experience is that discussing this topic in depth on college campuses is very effective.
Many assume that rights are exclusive to humans or that animals lack the qualities necessary for moral consideration. Your goal is to challenge these assumptions using a rights-based framework and show that justice demands recognizing animals as individuals with moral rights.
What questions could you ask to challenge the idea that rights depend on usefulness to humans?
Some people believe that animals only matter if they serve human interests. The rights-based approach rejects this completely, asserting that animals have inherent moral worth.
—“Animal rights aren’t about what animals can do for us. Do you recognize that other animals have value simply because they are sentient beings, just like us?”
—“If a being’s worth depended on how useful they were to others, wouldn’t that justify mistreating humans who can’t work or contribute to society?”
Why? This exposes the flaw in the idea that value depends on usefulness rather than intrinsic worth.
When discussing animal rights, what questions could you ask to shift the focus from charity to obligation, making it harder to dismiss?
People often think of being kind to animals as an act of generosity, rather than a moral duty. A rights-based approach makes it clear that it’s not about kindness—it’s about justice.
—“We don’t consider not harming humans an ‘act of kindness’—it’s simply what justice demands. Why should it be different for animals?”
—“Tom Regan argued that respecting animals isn’t about being nice—it’s about recognizing that they have the right to live free from exploitation. If it’s unjust to oppress a human, why isn’t it unjust to oppress an animal?”
Why? This shifts the focus from charity to obligation, making it harder to dismiss.
In discussing animal rights, what questions could you ask to counter the “animals aren’t moral agents” argument?
People sometimes argue that because animals don’t follow moral codes or respect rights themselves, they shouldn’t have rights. But rights are not based on moral agency—they are based on being capable of suffering and experiencing life.
—“Newborn babies and people with intellectual disabilities aren’t moral agents, but we still recognize their rights. If moral agency were required for rights, would we deny rights to them?”
—“Animals, like humans, can suffer and have an interest in avoiding harm. Why should their lack of moral reasoning make their suffering less important?”
Why? This forces them to apply their reasoning consistently, exposing a contradiction.
In discussing animal rights, what questions could you ask to employ the “subjects-of-a-life” standard?
Tom Regan’s “subjects-of-a-life” concept argues that animals have rights because they have their own experiences, desires, and sense of self.
—“Animals aren’t just objects—they have beliefs, desires, emotions, and a sense of the future. So why wouldn’t they deserve moral rights, just like humans?”
—“If an animal can feel fear, make choices, and remember past experiences, does that sound like a being whose life doesn’t matter?”
Why? This moves beyond intelligence-based arguments and makes it about the experience of life itself.
How do you respond to assertions like “animals and humans have different rights—pigs shouldn’t have the right to vote”?
Some people assume that giving animals rights means treating them exactly like humans, which can lead to absurd objections like “Should animals have the right to vote?”
—“No one is saying animals should have to right to vote. But shouldn’t they have the right to live free from human harm, just like children or people with disabilities who also don’t have all the same rights as adults?”
—“Shouldn’t rights be based on what’s relevant to a being’s nature? A dog doesn’t need the right to vote, but they do need the right not to be tortured or killed for human convenience.”
Why? This shows that rights are about fairness, not sameness.
How would you counter the “moral consideration is based on intelligence” argument?
Some claim that humans have rights because of their intelligence or advanced reasoning, and since animals have less cognitive ability, they don’t deserve moral consideration.
—“If intelligence determined moral worth, would that mean people with lower IQs have fewer rights?”
—“An octopus might be more intelligent than a newborn baby, but we don’t say babies have fewer rights. If intelligence isn’t the measure for human rights, why should it be for animals?”
Why? This exposes the inconsistency in intelligence-based arguments.
