In Singer's writing, he takes the mainly utilitarian perspective of weighing suffering against pleasure. In his words, “sentience” of this is the only thing that could possibly be differentiated between humans and those of other species. He argues that there is no legitimate reasoning that can show what the difference is in the value of an animal's pleasure versus that of a human's. To him, animals should be liberated from their confines; when weighing pleasure against pain, the needs of animals should be taken on an equal playing field to those of humans.
Regan differentiates himself from the utilitarian perspective in his response. Utilitarianism only values the feelings within a being, not the being itself. Regan argues that every individual has intrinsic value and that these feelings aren't as valuable in that one could always argue that an animal does not feel this in the same way as a human. The beauty of Regan's argument is that there is no aggregating of benefits or detriments. One being's worth is never compared to another; every being is worth the same regardless of age, sex, gender, or species.
Regan has a much more radical perspective of animal rights than that portrayed by Singer. It seems that Singer argues more for the reform of systems we currently have in place, while Regan argues for the disestablishment of these systems entirely. Singer's utilitarian perspective argues that currently, animals are just there to satisfy our tastes (completely instrumental), and their needs need to be taken into greater consideration. Regan furthers this by saying that animals should not be instrumental at all, they should be preserved and protected for the simple fact that they are alive.
My perspective is drastically from those of Regan and Singer. From my point of view, animals do need more rights than they currently have, but there isn't any reason why they should lose their instrumental value to humans. Maybe my opinion is based in a bit of speciesism, but I am under the firm belief that humans are the only species alive today than can make a difference on a global scale. This is in fact, what differentiates us from the species that Regan and Singer define. Without other animals to satiate our dietary needs, or for experiments for technological advancement, our society would never progress and could only digress.
Even when humans are looked at from a level field as other species, there seems to be nothing out of the ordinary about how much we consume. When you look at a predator-prey relationship, the predator never considers the ethics of what it is doing, it simply fills its need. I think Regan and Singer take for granted the fact that the only reason they are able to make their arguments in the first place is that human society and agriculture has developed to the point where it can sustain our population. Although there may be some who are gluttonous in the way they use this system, I feel that it is these individuals that are weighing down society, not the establishment as Singer and Regan suggest.
I think Regan and Singer have good moral ideas, but that these perspectives would never hold in today's society. With a population of over 7 billion people, it is hard to see how this could be sustained without the use of animals as a resource. From Regan's perspective, a death is a death, no matter what species. Why then does it matter if an animal is to die so that a human may remain a live, or whether a human is to die for an animal to stay alive? In this way, even though I disagree with it, Singer's perspective makes more sense in that a human death would relieve more stress from the environment than a similar animal death.
I agree with your belief that there is nothing wrong with animals having an instrumental value to humans. I also agree that there is probably no other species that can cause as large of an impact that humans can. I would also be interested to see how humans would survive without instrumentally using animals. If not for sustenance, would animals still be used for plowing? What would their roles in society be then?
ReplyDeleteI agree that humans are essentially speciesists. I also think however that we are not the only animals (or organisms for that matter) that can have a global impact. Plants provide the rich atmosphere we need to survive, fleas on rats caused the bubonic plague and several globally feared diseases are carried by animals such as mosquitoes, tsetse flies and birds. I believe that the lives of animals do matter and do have value such as Singer and Regan suggest. I am of the firm opinion however that the value system used for animals is not the same as the value system for humans. We fill different ecological niches and as our roles in the world are not interchangeable neither should the way we evaluate global impact and importance be. Just as every domino in a cascade has intrinsic value as a whole some are more key to construction than others, our ecosystem would not hold unless each need was filled by a specific organism. So obviously each creature has an intrinsic value. But, as Regan and Singer suggest, to assume each value must be the same is naive.
ReplyDeleteI do understand your point that humans are most likely the only living creatures that make a "difference on the global scale." But I would also argue that it's because human have made such a mess of things that there is even the need to make a difference in the world. This is probably attributed to industrialization, globalization, and capitalist competition. While these things are not wrong, the manner in which we chose to pursue them is, using inefficient machinery and corrupt politics to allow of the world to be in the condition it is now.
ReplyDeleteI personally would disagree with there being nothing wrong in how much we consume. Though humans are on the top of the food chain, if we consider the health complications (diabetes, obesity, etc.) that have emerged as a result of the amount we eat, I would say that there is a problem.
I agree that there is no way that either Singer's or Regan's argument would hold in this day and age. I appreciated the end of Regan's article when he made the distinction between a philosopher and a politician where philosophers mainly have great ideas without the background on how to best achieve their idea state, and politicians are the ones trying to make it a reality.