Discussion Assignment

Video - Main Ideas in Regan

Main Ideas in Regan (Links to an external site.) Minimize Video Hello again, and welcome back for this video!

Background on Regan

We will turn to examine the views of Tom Regan. Regan is a contemporary American philosopher who taught for many years at North Carolina State University, and he is also one of the most famous defenders of the idea of animal rights. One very controversial debates involving rights is whether animals have rights too, or whether it is only appropriate to talk about human rights. So, I thought it would be interesting to delve into this debate by considering Regan’s views.

Brief Overview

Before moving in to the reading itself, it might be helpful to begin with a very brief summary of Regan’s position, to help orient the details of the reading. So, let me make two quick observations. First, we are going to see that

Regan agrees with Kant that we should think about ethics in terms of helping and not hurting others, and that there are some ways of hurting others that are always wrong.

So, in those respects, he is totally on board with Kant’s ethical framework. However,

Regan disagrees with Kant that ethics only concerns our treatment of other persons, defined as rational beings. Regan argues that we should respect human rights, but also respect animal rights as well. 

So, he is trying to expand the category of beings that have rights and deserve our respect.

Human Uses of Animals

At the very beginning of his essay, Regan (2006/2010) explains that he is opposed to at least three things:

1. “the use of animals in science,”

2. “commercial animal agriculture,” which would involve things like raising animals for meat and dairy, and

3. “commercial and sport hunting and trapping” (p. 531).

Regan is going to argue that animals have certain rights, and that the practices just listed are wrong because they violate those rights.

Rejected Accounts

In the middle parts of the reading, Regan considers three accounts of our duties concerning animals that he ultimately rejects as inadequate. These are: 

· Contractarianism 

· The cruelty-kindness view, and 

· Utilitarianism

For each account, he first explains it, and then gives his own reasons for rejecting it as inadequate. I won’t go into the details here about his critique of these different views, but you should definitely take a look at that in the reading, and if you have any questions, you can certainly bring that into our discussion.

Utilitarianism, as a general ethical theory, will be a main focus of a future lesson in the course, so Regan’s discussion of it can provide a quick introduction to utilitarianism. Regan himself rejects the view, but in a future lesson, we will consider some further pros and cons of utilitarianism. So, you will be able to form your own opinion more fully then. 

The Rights Theory

For now, let’s turn to examine the ethical outlook that Regan himself endorses, namely, the rights view.

Like Kant, Regan believes that certain beings possess special value, and should never be treated as a means only. However, Kant only included persons in this category. Regan, on the other hand, is going to argue that certain animals should receive the same kind of respect as human beings. 

Subjects of a Life

One of the key terms in Regan’s essay is the phrase “subjects of a life.” According to Regan,

Subjects of a life are beings that have a series of interconnected feelings, desires, expectations, and experiences.

Regan holds that we should show respect to all subjects of a life.

Humans would typically fall in this category, but so would many animals, since they also have interconnected feelings, desires, expectations, and experiences. We can note, though, that plants are not subjects of a life, according to Regan’s definition. Plants are living things, but they do not have conscious feelings or experiences. For this reason, Regan does not believe that plants have rights.

Regan’s Modified Form of the Categorical Imperative

We are now in a good position to compare and contrast the views of Kant and Regan, and to see how Regan has, in effect, modified Kant’s second form of the categorical imperative. So, to review, we can recall that Kant’s second form of the categorical imperative, in effect, said to:

Kant: Always treat persons as ends in themselves, and never treat persons as means only.

What Regan has done is he has modified this statement so that it applies to more than just persons. His expanded form of the categorical imperatives would look something like this:

Regan: Always treat subjects of a life as ends in themselves, and never treat subjects of a life as means only.

The second part of this statement would require us to never hurt animals that are subjects of a life by killing or confining them for our own benefit. So, it leads to a strong sense of animal rights, in keeping with Regan’s goals for the essay.

Concluding Thoughts

I encourage everyone to think for themselves, and reflect on whether Regan’s view is ultimately right. Some people believe he is correct, while some people are more persuaded by one of the competing accounts of our duties concerning animals that Regan discusses in the earlier parts of the reading.

Yet another possibility—not Regan’s own view—is that animals have certain rights, but that these are not as stringent as human rights. Maybe, for example, it is always wrong to kill innocent humans, since humans are rational, but that there can be more exceptions when it comes to killing animals, since they are subjects of a life, but do not usually possess reason in the same way as humans. Regan would treat humans and animals as basically equal, but others may want to accept animal rights that are in some way subordinate to human rights. So, you can think out the details of these various ideas for yourself as you reflect on your own views.