Animal Rights and

Vegetarianism

Central Concept:

How to approach applied ethical problems: vegetarianism.

Useful: https://www.iep.utm.edu/anim-eth/
First: Understanding the Problem
• Distinctions

• Make sure you know what you are talking about (and explain it
clearly).

• We might ask:
• What, if any, rights do animals have?
• Are they the same as human rights?
• How might we distinguish between which animals do and do not
have rights?
First: Understanding the Problem
• Stakeholders

• Who has a stake (who is directly involved) in the problem?

• Who is most significantly affected by the issue of animal rights? Of

vegetarianism?
• Examples: Farmers, meat eaters, supermarket owners…

• Knowing the stakeholders helps you to understand the scope or extent

of the issue.
Second: Arguments and Theories
• Once you understand what the problem is you are dealing with, you
will then consider some arguments and theoretical perspectives.

• In particular, we might approach animals rights from the theoretical

perspectives we have considered so far…
Cultural Relativism
• What will the cultural relativist say about animal rights?

Something like:
- Whether animals have rights (and which animals) will depend on
the cultural standards of the society.

• Where might we look to understand those standards?

• Laws
• Cuisine
• Work places involving animals
Cultural Relativism
• You can always use examples, case studies, etc. to help your
arguments.

• For instance, where to look for those standards, but also how to
disagree with the theory….

• Why might we disagree with the cultural relativist’s approach to

animal rights..?

• To research: Are there instances of animal treatment that we strongly

disagree with (even if we are not vegetarian)?
Utilitarianism
• What will the utilitarian say about animal rights?

• Should we include animals in our considerations?

Animals and Happiness
• Bentham famously said:

• “A full-grown horse or a dog is... a more rational animal than a

(human) infant of a day or a week... old... The question is not,
can [animals] reason? Can they talk? But: can they suffer?”

• This indicates that Bentham clearly thought animal pain

and pleasure was an important consideration.
Animals and Happiness
• If we agree with Bentham, we will want to distinguish between
different kinds of animals.
• Can all animals suffer?

• Do animals suffer for different reasons to humans? (We get

pleasure from prolonged family life, but solitary creatures
presumably don’t get pleasure from that, such as many large cats
and some bears)

• What does make an animal suffer?

• Fear, mistreatment, imprisonment, physical pain?
Utilitarianism and Animal Rights
• What rights animals have, according to the
utilitarian, will depend on whether they can
experience pain/pleasure or happiness/unhappiness.

• This requires us to empirically investigate whether

animals do, in fact, suffer.

• Another good place research!

Utilitarianism and Rights

• We might wonder what rights are (generally speaking).

• When do you think the utilitarian might agree that a

person has a right?
Utilitarianism and Rights
• In Mills words:

• “To have a right, then, is, I conceive, to have

something which society ought to defend me in the
possession of. If the objector goes on to ask, why it
ought? I can give him no other reason than general
utility.”
Recent Utilitarianism
• A place to look for recent versions of utilitarianism, especially applied
to animal rights, is the work of Peter Singer.

• Singer argues that both human and animal preferences are important
when it comes to considering animal rights.

• See: https://www.iep.utm.edu/anim-eth/#SH3a

• Again, keep in mind potential objections to utilitarianism.

Recent Utilitarianism and Animal Rights
• ‘…the racist violates the principle of equality by giving greater weight to the
interests of members of his own race, when there is a clash between their
interests and the interests of those of another race. Similarly the speciesist allows
the interests of his own species to override the greater interests of members of
other species. The pattern is the same in each case.’
Singer 1974. All Animals are Equal

• Singer describes this unequal treatment of animals as speciesism.

• It’s easy to see here the similarities between Singer’s and Bentham’s views (just
compare the quotes!).
Utilitarianism & Animals Rights Conclusion
• We have to weigh animal happiness against human happiness.

• We cannot value either side’s interests absolutely above the

other’s (we can’t automatically assume human interests are
more important).

• At least some animals deserve serious consideration for

animal rights, but perhaps not absolute protection when the
human benefits far outweigh the animal’s pain.
Kant’s Ethics (deontology) and Animal Rights
• Kant’s approach to animals is quite different from utilitarianism.

• He isn’t interested in happiness/unhappiness nor pain/pleasure.

• Instead, he thinks the ability to freely use reason/rationality

(autonomy) is central to MORAL CONSIDERATION.

• Humans have this autonomy, animals (he thinks) do not.

• So, what does this mean for animals, if true?

Kant’s Ethics and Animal Rights
• Basically, the argument holds that there is an important distinction
between humans and animals, that implies an equally important moral
distinction.

• Animals cannot use reason, they cannot debate morality, they cannot
choose to act morally, so they are not subjects of morality.

• For instance, have you ever heard of a tiger go on hunger strike, for a
good cause?
Distinctions
• Are there any other important distinctions between humans and
animals?

• Examples:
• Ability to speak?
• Ability to have complex emotions?
• Ability to form communities, cultures, etc.?
• Self-Awareness?

• For Kant: The ability to act autonomously.

Kant and Animals
• Kant writes:
• ‘The fact that the human being can have the representation “I” raises
him infinitely above all the other beings on earth. By this he is a
person….that is, a being altogether different in rank and dignity from
things, such as irrational animals, with which one may deal and
dispose at one’s discretion.’
Kant 1798. Anthropology from a pragmatic point of view.

However…
Kant and Animals
• Kant did give animals a kind of indirect protection. He writes:

• ‘If a man shoots his dog because the animal is no longer capable of
service, he does not fail in his duty to the dog, for the dog cannot
judge, but his act is inhuman and damages in himself that humanity
which it is his duty to show towards mankind. If he is not to stifle his
human feelings, he must practice kindness towards animals, for he
who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men.’
Kant 1748. Lectures on Ethics.
Do you agree with Kant?
Kant and Animals
• Kant thinks that a person who mistreats animals is probably not a good
person.

• However, that’s because he thinks they are more likely to also be cruel to
humans.

• It is not because there is something intrinsically wrong with how they

treat animals.

• So there is (at least) a kind of indirect defense of animals, but it’s not
much.
Advantages
• Intuitions: The fact is, most people do think (and act) as though there
is an important moral difference between animals and humans.

• This is reflected in law and behaviour.

• At least, most people agree it is better to e.g. kill a cow than kill a
human.
Disadvantages
• Again, think about some of the potential disadvantages of Kant raised
previously.

• Also: We might not want to accept, even if we do think animals have a

lesser moral status, that they have none at all.
An Extra Perspective: Theology
• For example, Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), a famous catholic
philosopher, wrote:
• “[Animals] by the divine providence they intended for man’s use in the
natural order. Hence it is not wrong for man to make use of them, either by
killing them or in any other way whatever.”

• What do you think of what Aquinas said?

• Is there a divine providence? How do we know? How do we know
what it is?
• Is it convincing to people who aren’t religious?
For Debates and Exams
• You must be able to explain a position that argues both for and against
animals rights.

• You must also be familiar with potential advantages and disadvantages of

the theories.

• Also, always keep in mind the CRITICAL THINKING skills we have

learnt throughout—whether it is how to structure arguments clearly or
fallacies.

• This part of the course really requires you to do some of your own reading
in order to present arguments/defend your positions.