Preface
Briefing description and more.
This briefing provides a short summary of the key concepts of animal rights philosophy as espoused by philosopher Tom Regan.
Companion Videos
How to use companion videos
Videos may be posted on multiple social media platforms, and you can share them on each platform according each platform’s conventions.
Share this Briefing
Social Media Sharing Image
This image will be used when sharing the briefing on a social media platform. You can see all social sharing images in the grid view.
How to share this briefing
Click on the icon for the platform on which you wish to share. What happens next depends on the platform, but generally a popup will appear, letting you add your own text as you share.
Briefing Meta
Metrics
Additional media and advocacy resources are on the way, though not every briefing will feature every type of media.
| Text: | |
| Key Concepts | 5 |
| Counterclaims | 1 |
| Advocacy Notes | 1 |
| Footnotes | 17 |
| Media: | |
| Companion Videos | 0 |
| Memes and Infographics | 0 |
| Presentation Slides | 0 |
| Flash Cards | 0 |
Other Meta
Date Posted:
Last Edited:
Contributors
Help Us Improve
Please send your suggestions for improvements, or report any issues with this briefing to team@vbriefings.org
We appreciate that you are taking the time to help up improve. All suggestions and reports will be carefully considered.
Summary
A concise summary of the briefing (see below for citations).
Animal rights philosophy is largely shaped by the work of Tom Regan, whose contributions are widely considered the cornerstone of the movement.
A key concept of a rights-based approach is the inherent value and moral status of animals, independent of their utility to humans.
Animals have the right to be treated with respect, without being being subjected to human oppression.
This rights-based approach focuses is on the inviolable rights of individual animals rather than aggregate welfare, emphasizing respect for individual animals as a matter of justice.
The idea of “subjects-of-a-life,” beings with complex mental and emotional lives, underpins the ascription of rights to animals.
The fact that nonhuman animals are not moral agents does not invalidate their rights. Similarly, some individuals with intellectual disabilities may not be moral agents, yet their rights are still recognized and protected.
Context
Places this topic in its larger context.
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 all 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.
Key Points
This section provides talking points.
Animals have inherent value and moral status independent of their utility to humans.
This principle asserts that animals are not merely resources for human use but have their own experiences, desires, and lives that matter morally.1 This idea challenges traditional anthropocentric views and forms the basis for extending moral consideration to animals.
Animal rights philosophy emphasizes respect for individual animals rather than aggregate welfare.
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.2 It argues that the rights of individuals should not be sacrificed for the greater good..
The concept of “subjects-of-a-life” provides a basis for ascribing rights to other animals.
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.3
The right to be treated with respect is a matter of justice.
Regan argued that animals have inherent value and moral rights, including the right to be treated with respect and live their lives without oppression by humans.
Regan believed that it is not an act of kindness to treat animals respectfully, it is an act of justice.4
Animals’ inability to be moral agents doesn’t diminish their rights.
Tom Regan distinguishes between moral agents, who can make moral decisions, and moral patients, who cannot but still deserve moral consideration.5
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.6
Regan argues that animals’ inability to be moral agents doesn’t diminish their inherent value or rights. Their capacity to experience life and suffering qualifies them for moral protection, similar to humans. Some individuals with intellectual disabilities may not be moral agents, yet their rights are still recognized and protected.7
Counterclaims
Responses to some yes but retorts.
Claim: 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.8
Supplementary Info
Additional information that may prove useful.
Tom’s 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.9
Tom Regans Speech.
- This is a transcript of the speech given by Tom Regan at the Royal Institute of Great Britain in 1989. A video of the speech is available on YouTube.10
Full Transcript:
“The other animals humans eat, use in science, hunt, trap and exploit in a variety of other ways have a life of their own that is of importance to them, apart from their utility to us. They are not only in the world, they are aware of it and also of what happens to them. And what happens to them matters to them.
“Each has a life that fares experientially better or worse for the one whose life it is. Like us they bring a unified, psychological presence to the world. Like us they are somebodies, not somethings. In these fundamental ways that nonhuman animals in labs or on farms for example are the same as human beings. And so it is that the ethics of our dealings with them and with one another must stress on some of the same fundamental moral principles.
“At its deepest level, an enlightened human ethics is based on the independent value of the individual. To treat human beings in ways that do not honor their independent worth is to reduce them to the status of tools, or models or commodities, for example, is to violate that most basic of human rights, the right to be treated with respect.
“The philosophy of animal rights demands only that the logic be respected for any argument that plausibly explains the independent value of human beings implies that other animal have the same value and have it equally. And any argument that plausibly explains the rights of humans to be treated with respect also implies that these other animals have the same rights and have it equally also.
“As a result of selected media coverage in the past which this evening’s debate is a notable and praiseworthy exception, the general public has tended to view advocates of animal rights in exclusively negative terms: we are anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-rational, anti-human, we stand against justice and for violence. The truth, as it happens, is quite the reverse. The philosophy of animal rights is on the side of reason, for it is not rational to discriminate arbitrarily, and discrimination against nonhuman animals is demonstrably arbitrary. It is wrong to treat weaker human beings, especially those who are lacking a normal human intelligence, as tools or models, for example.
“It cannot be rational, therefore, to treat other animals as if they were tools, models and the like if their psychology is as rich as, or richer than, these human beings.
“The philosophy of animal rights is pro, not anti-science. This philosophy is respectful of our best science in general and of evolutionary biology in particular. The latter teach us that, in Darwin’s words, human differ from many other animals in degree and not in kind. Questions about line-drawing to one side, it is obvious that the animals used in laboratories, raised for food, and hunted for pleasure, or trapped for profit, for example, are our psychological kin. This is not fantasy. This is fact, supported by our best science.
“The philosophy of animal rights stands for, not against justice. We are not to violate the rights of the few so that the many might benefit. Slavery allows this, child labor allows this, all unjust social institutions allow this, but not the philosophy of animal rights whose highest principle is that of justice.
“The philosophy of animal rights stands for peace, and against violence. The fundamental demand of this philosophy is to treat humans and other nonhuman animals with respect. This philosophy, therefore, is a philosophy of peace. But it is a philosophy that extends the demand for peace beyond the boundaries of our species, for there is an undeclared war being waged everyday against countless millions of nonhuman animals.
“To stand truly for peace is to stand firmly against their ruthless exploitation.
“And what aside from the common menu of media distortions, what will be said by the opponents of the animal rights. Will the objections be that we are equating animals and humans in every respect when in fact humans and animals differ greatly, but clearly we are not saying that humans and other animals are the same in every way; that dogs and cats can do calculus, or the pigs and cows enjoy poetry. What we are saying is that, like humans, many other animals have an experiential welfare of their own. In this sense, we and they are the same. In this sense, therefore, despite our many differences, we and they are equal.
“Will the objection be that we are saying that every human and every animal has the same rights, that chicken should have the right to vote, and pigs the right to ballet lessons but, of course, we are not saying this. All we are saying is that these animals and humans share one basic moral right, the right to be treated with respect.
“Will the objection be that, because animals do not respect our rights, we therefore have no obligation to respect their rights either. But there are many human beings who have rights and are unable to respect the rights of others. Young children, and the mentally enfeebled and deranged of all ages; in their case, we do not say that it is perfectly all right to treat them as tools or models or commodities, because they do not honour our rights. On the contrary, we recognize that we have a duty to treat them with respect.
“What is true of cases involving these human beings in no less true of cases involving other animals.
“Will the objection be that, even if other animals do have moral rights, there are other more important things that need our attention: world hunger, and child abuse, for example. Apartheid, drugs, violence to women, the plight of the homeless, after, after we take care of these problems, then we can worry about animal rights.
“This objection misses the mark for the rank and file of the animal rights movement is composed of people whose first lines of service is human service: doctors, nurses and other health care professionals, people involved in a broad range of social services from rape counseling to aiding victims of child abuse, or famine or discrimination, teachers of every level of education, ministers, priests, rabbis.
“And the lives of these people demonstrate that the choice that people face are is not between helping humans or helping other animals. For one can do both. We should do both.
“Will the objection be, finally, that no one has rights, not any human being and not any other animal either but, rather, that right and wrong are a matter of acting to produce the best consequences, being certain to count everyone’s interests and count equal interests equally. This moral philosophy, utilitarianism, has a long and venerable history, influential men and women, past and present, are among its adherents and yet it is a bankrupt moral philosophy if ever there was one.
“Are we seriously, seriously, to inquire as to the interest of the rapist before declaring rape wrong; should we ask the child molester whether his interest would be frustrated before condemning the molestation of our children? Remarkably a consistent utilitarianism demands that we ask these questions and, in so demanding, relinquishes any claim on our rational assent. With regard to the philosophy of animal rights, then, is it rational, impartial, scientifically-informed, does it stand for peace, and against injustice? To these – all these questions – the answer is an unqualified yes.
“And as for the objections that are raised against this philosophy, are those who accept it able to offer rational, informed, answers, again the answer is yes. In a battle of ideas, the philosophy of animal rights wins, its critics lose. It remains to be seen which side emerges, as the victor in the ongoing political battle between what is just and what is not.”
Further Study
Sources providing a deeper understanding of the topic or related topics.
Other Resources
Tom Regan’s 1986 paper “The Case for Animal Rights“11 presents his case for animal rights and is available for online reading.
Tom Regan’s Book, The Case for Animal Rights (1983)12 is considered a seminal work in animal rights philosophy.For an easier to read, less rigorous treatment of his philosophy, see his Defending Animal Rights (2000)13 or Animal Rights Human Wrongs (2003)14.
This academic article examines Tom Regan’s Philosophy of Animal Rights “in the context of discussions of intrinsic and inherent worth” and discusses their relevance and applicability in modern ethical and legal debates.15
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy provides a comprehensive overview of the philosophical arguments for a moral status for animals, including rights-based approaches.16
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy section on animals and ethics provides an academic overview of animal rights philosophy, including rights-based approaches.17
Advocacy Resources
Information to help with outreach and advocacy.
Additional media and advocacy resources are on the way, though not every briefing will feature every type of media.
Share This Briefing
Cloned from the Preface Section on page load.
Companion Videos
Cloned from the Preface Section on page load.
Memes and Infographics
No images found.
How to use Memes and Infographics
To sequence through all memes and infographics on this page, click on any image than use the arrow keys or the arrow buttons to show next and previous images.
To share a meme or infographic, right click on the image and choose download or save as. Then upload the image to the platform of choice.
Presentation Slides
Slides not available.
How to Use the Presentation Slides
You can view the slideshow full screen by clicking on the first link above.
To use Canva presenter mode, view the speaker notes, or download the slides as PowerPoint, login to Canva (the free account works) and follow the Full Canva Link provided above.
To copy this presentation to your own Canva project, use the Full Canva Link provided above, then select File->Make a Copy from the upper left. You can build your own unique presentation from multiple briefings by copying the presentation from each briefing and then building another presentation from the copied presentations.
Flash Cards
We partner with Brainscape because of their excellent features for learning. You will need to create a free Brainscape account to study the cards.
About Flash Cards and Brainscape
Flash cards are here to help you commit important facts and concepts in this briefing to memory.
In Brainscape, there is one deck for each briefing. You can study more than one deck at a time. Brainscape uses spaced repetition to promote memory retention. It is “the secret to learning more while studying less.”
You can study using your browser, but Brainscape also has a free mobile app that makes learning anywhere easy.
Advocacy Notes
Tips for Advocacy and Outreach
Animal right philosophy strengthens the case for veganism, and is useful in discussions with any audience that values the exploration of ideas.
That said, it’s perhaps best to not delve too deeply into the topic, unless you audience is well-versed in philosophy, or has a strong interest in going deeper. This is because you could come across as pedantic and condescending.
Footnotes
Our sources, with links back to where they’re used.
- Regan, Tom. The Case for Animal Rights. University of California Press, 1983. www.amazon.com/Case-Animal-Rights-Tom-Regan/dp/0520243862. Accessed 2 Jul. 2024 ↩︎
- Regan, Tom. The Case for Animal Rights. University of California Press, 1983. www.amazon.com/Case-Animal-Rights-Tom-Regan/dp/0520243862. Accessed 2 Jul. 2024 ↩︎
- Regan, Tom. The Case for Animal Rights. University of California Press, 1983. www.amazon.com/Case-Animal-Rights-Tom-Regan/dp/0520243862. Accessed 2 Jul. 2024 ↩︎
- Regan, Tom. The Case for Animal Rights. University of California Press, 1983. www.amazon.com/Case-Animal-Rights-Tom-Regan/dp/0520243862. Accessed 2 Jul. 2024 ↩︎
- Regan, Tom. The Case for Animal Rights. University of California Press, 1983. www.amazon.com/Case-Animal-Rights-Tom-Regan/dp/0520243862. Accessed 2 Jul. 2024 ↩︎
- Regan, Tom. The Case for Animal Rights. University of California Press, 1983. www.amazon.com/Case-Animal-Rights-Tom-Regan/dp/0520243862. Accessed 2 Jul. 2024 ↩︎
- Regan, Tom. The Case for Animal Rights. University of California Press, 1983. www.amazon.com/Case-Animal-Rights-Tom-Regan/dp/0520243862. Accessed 2 Jul. 2024 ↩︎
- Regan, Tom. The Case for Animal Rights. University of California Press, 1983. www.amazon.com/Case-Animal-Rights-Tom-Regan/dp/0520243862. Accessed 2 Jul. 2024 ↩︎
- Regan, Tom. The Case for Animal Rights. University of California Press, 1983. www.amazon.com/Case-Animal-Rights-Tom-Regan/dp/0520243862. Accessed 2 Jul. 2024 ↩︎
- Tom Regan, 1989 Speech at the Royal Institute of Great Britain, YouTube ↩︎
- Regan, T. (1986). A case for animal rights. In M.W. Fox & L.D. Mickley (Eds.), Advances in animal welfare
science 1986/87 (pp. 179-189). Washington, DC: The Humane Society of the United States. ↩︎ - Regan, Tom. The Case for Animal Rights. University of California Press, 1983. www.amazon.com/Case-Animal-Rights-Tom-Regan/dp/0520243862. Accessed 2 Jul. 2024. ↩︎
- Regan, Tom. Defending Animal Rights. Urbana, Ill., University Of Illinois Press ; Chesham, 2006. ↩︎
- Regan, Tom. Animal Rights, Human Wrongs. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 22 Nov. 2003. ↩︎
- Lengauer, Erwin. “Tom Regan’s Philosophy of Animal Rights: Subjects-of-a-Life in the Context of Discussions of Intrinsic and Inherent Worth.” Problemos, vol. 97, 2020, pp. 87–98, doi.org/10.15388/Problemos.97.7. Accessed 2 July 2024. ↩︎
- Gruen, Lori. “The Moral Status of Animals.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1 Oct. 2017, plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-animal/. Accessed 2 Jul. 2024. ↩︎
- Fieser, James. “Ethics: Animals.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, iep.utm.edu/anim-eth/. Accessed 2 Jul. 2024. ↩︎
