An examination and defense of one argument concerning animal rights

Inquiry 22 (1-4):189 – 219 (1979)
An argument is examined and defended for extending basic moral rights to animals which assumes that humans, including infants and the severely mentally enfeebled, have such rights. It is claimed that this argument proceeds on two fronts, one critical, where proposed criteria of right-possession are rejected, the other constructive, where proposed criteria are examined with a view to determining the most reasonable one. This form of argument is defended against the charge that it is self-defeating, various candidates for the title, 'most reasonable criterion of right-possession', are critically examined, and it is argued that this criterion is to be found in the notion of inherent value: What underlies the ascription of rights to any given x is that x has value logically independently of anyone's valuing x; thus, to treat x as if x had value only if or as it served one's interests, etc., is to violate x 's rights. It is argued that many animals, owing to their being subjects of a life that is more or less valuable for them logically independently of the interests of others, can satisfy this criterion and therefore have certain basic moral rights, if humans, including the severely mentally enfeebled, do. Finally, the question, What basic moral rights do animals have? is explored.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1080/00201747908601872
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 23,674
External links
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
Tom Regan (1975). The Moral Basis of Vegetarianism. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 5 (2):181 - 214.
Jan Narveson (1977). Animal Rights. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 7 (1):161 - 178.

View all 9 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Daniel A. Dombrowski (2006). Is the Argument From Marginal Cases Obtuse? Journal of Applied Philosophy 23 (2):223–232.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

35 ( #135,979 of 1,903,042 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #446,009 of 1,903,042 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.