Ethical Treatment of Animals

Peter Singer & Tom Reagan

Group 4: Arica, Buendia, Catalan, Dimailig, Fajardo,

Templa
Animal Rights
 Animal Rights
 is an idea that intends to provide humane treatment to animals.
­
 It means the right not to be exploited for human purposes and that
the interests of non-human animals should be given the same
consideration as the similar interests of human beings.
 Also termed as “animal liberation”.
 Animal Rights
 Animal rights are one of the most controversial issues today. There
has been endless debate about whether or not animals have rights.
Philosophers attempt to come up with the moral conclusions by
taking in account the many different standpoints and presenting
their related documents.
 Speciesism
Animal
Liberation
Peter
The Case Singer
for Animal
Tom
Rights
Reagan
Animal
Rights
 Philosopher: Tom Reagan
 An American advocate for animal rights and an emeritus professor of
philosophy.
 He asserted that animals have intrinsic value because they have
feelings, beliefs, preferences, memories, expectations, and so on.
 He sees the animal rights movement as part of the human rights
movement and maintains that animals who are a subject of a life
should have similar rights to life as humans
 Philosopher: Tom Reagan
 The Case for Animal Rights - A book of Tom Regan, it argues that at
least some kinds of non-human animals have moral rights because
they are the “subjects of a life”.
 He calls animals with such features "subjects of a life" because "what
happens to them matters to them." He says "All animals are
somebody - someone with a life of their own. Behind those eyes is a
story, the story of their life in their world as they experience it."
 Clash of Philosophies
 Regan's position clashes with his  Regan says this will thwart people
contemporary, Peter Singer. Singer putting their own interests before
argues that subjective human animals whenever it suits them,
preferences can occasionally prevent exploitation of individual
outweigh the interests of animals to animals for the greater good (of
which Regan counters that it is humans), and stop morality being an
better that animal rights are based exclusively human club.
on intrinsic value.
 Philosopher: Peter Singer
 An Australian ethical and political philosopher best known for his work
in bioethics and his role as one of the intellectual founders of the
modern animal rights movement.
 His compelling arguments have convinced generations of readers that
the common ways in which human beings use animals are profoundly
immoral.
 Philosopher: Peter Singer
 Animal Liberation - A book of Peter Singer that stimulated the animal
rights movement in 1975 and is unique among contemporary
philosophers for the direct, immediate, and powerful influence his
ideas have had on the world around him.
 The most important philosophical contribution of the book was
Singer’s clear articulation of the concept of “speciesism.”
Click icon to add picture

Speciesism
Speciesism
 The rationally unsupported idea that the species of a being should be
relevant to its moral status.
 The assumption of human superiority leading to the exploitation of
animals.
Speciesism
 Singer believes that our treatment of animals is
one of the foremost ethical issues of today. He
says toleration for the mistreatment of animals
is a prejudice that, like sexism and racism, does
not have a rational basis, and failure to take
into account animal suffering is to be guilty of
speciesism.
 Conclusion
 All in all, both Peter Singer and Tom Regan present theories regarding
the morally correct treatment of animals. Both theories conclude that
killing animals is unjustifiable and morally wrong. However, Singer’s
utilitarian concept has issues with quantifying pleasure and pain,
whether or not pleasure is always good, what happens when pleasure
and pain are equal, regarding some individuals as non-persons and
treating individuals as means not ends.
 Conclusion
 Regan’s rights theory is problematic because his argument may not
actually be Kantian, he has no justifiable way to extend moral
considerability to animals and certain situations in which he asserts
that rights should be overridden may not be justifiable either.
Evidently, the two theories have fundamental issues that need to be
modified or discarded in order to prove that killing animals is wrong.
 Conclusion
 Singer and Regan present arguments that have good potential for
establishing theory in which it is wrong to kill non-human animals for
food and things of the like. Yet, the theories still have issues that need
to be considered and changed in order to further validate the ideas.
Thank you!