David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Applied Philosophy 29 (2):146-159 (2012)
The existence of predatory animals is a problem in animal ethics that is often not taken as seriously as it should be. We show that it reveals a weakness in Tom Regan's theory of animal rights that also becomes apparent in his treatment of innocent human threats. We show that there are cases in which Regan's justice-prevails-approach to morality implies a duty not to assist the jeopardized, contrary to his own moral beliefs. While a modified account of animal rights that recognizes the moral patient as a kind of entity that can violate moral rights avoids this counterintuitive conclusion, it makes non-human predation a rights issue that morally ought to be subjected to human regulation. Jennifer Everett, Lori Gruen and other animal advocates base their treatment of predation in part on Regan's theory and run into similar problems, demonstrating the need to radically rethink the foundations of the animal rights movement. We suggest to those who, like us, find it less plausible to introduce morality to the wild than to reject the concept of rights that makes this move necessary to read our criticism either as a modus tollens argument and reject non-human animal rights altogether or as motivating a libertarian-ish theory of animal rights
|Keywords||animal rights animal ethics animal liberation carnivorous animals predation innocent threats libertarianism|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Stijn Bruers (2015). The Core Argument for Veganism. Philosophia 43 (2):271-290.
Josh Milburn (2015). Rabbits, Stoats and the Predator Problem: Why a Strong Animal Rights Position Need Not Call for Human Intervention to Protect Prey From Predators. Res Publica 21 (3):273-289.
Beril İdemen Sözmen (2013). Harm in the Wild: Facing Non-Human Suffering in Nature. [REVIEW] Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16 (5):1075-1088.
Similar books and articles
Mark Rowlands (2009). Animal Rights: Moral Theory and Practice. Palgrave Macmillan.
Mark Rowlands (1998). Animal Rights: A Philosophical Defence. St. Martin's Press.
H. J. McCloskey (1979). Moral Rights and Animals. Inquiry 22 (1-4):23 – 54.
Peter Carruthers (1992). The Animals Issue: Moral Theory in Practice. Cambridge University Press.
Claire Molloy (2011). Popular Media and Animals. Palgrave Macmillan.
Evelyn B. Pluhar (1995). Beyond Prejudice: The Moral Significance of Human and Nonhuman Animals. Duke University Press.
Tom Regan (1997). The Rights of Humans and Other Animals. Ethics and Behavior 7 (2):103 – 111.
David DeGrazia (2002). Animal Rights: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
Tom Regan (2009). The Case for Animal Rights. In Steven M. Cahn (ed.), Noûs. Oxford University Press 425-434.
Marna A. Owen (2009). Animal Rights: Noble Cause or Needless Effort? Twenty-First Century Books.
Karl Schudt (2003). Are Animal Rights Inimical to Human Dignity? Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 77:189-203.
Kay Peggs (2012). Animals and Sociology. Palgrave Macmillan.
Kelly Oliver (2010). Animal Ethics: Toward an Ethics of Responsiveness. Research in Phenomenology 40 (2):267-280.
Added to index2012-04-28
Total downloads43 ( #92,563 of 1,789,994 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #424,764 of 1,789,994 )
How can I increase my downloads?