“Animal Liberation or Animal Rights?”

Date: 09-06-2016

Initial 3 pages of the essay:

            Peter Singer, the author of Animal Liberation, reviewed The Case for Animal Studies by another writer Tom Regan after reading which Regan made clear that he preferred the label “animal rights movement” over “animal liberation movement”. “Animal Liberation or Animal Rights?” is a reply by Singer to Regan’s response.

Singer proposes for a minimal characteristic which would be possessed by both human and non-human animals to decide the rights of animals. Because, according to him, if rationality, autonomy, self-consciousness, the ability to enter into contracts or to reciprocate are placed as bases for rights, then infants and humans with congenital disorders/brain damaged humans would be left out. Also, if being a homo sapiens is the eligible criteria to access rights then that would be speciesism which, again according to him, is a form of favouritism and discrimination as unjustifiable as racism. That is where he realizes the need to have a more minimal characteristic inclusive of both humans and nonhumans.

While other philosophers try to elevate the moral status of animals by attributing rights, Singer tries to do so by arguing that animals have interests.

Reference:

JSTOR article: “Animal Liberation or Animal Rights?” by Peter Singer

Source: The Monist, Vol.70, No.1, Animal Rights (January, 1987), pp.3-14

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27903010

Accessed: 9-6-2016, 10.09 UTC

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s