(Warren, 93, 1st paragraph right side)
Warren has a much less extreme approach than the one taken by Regan. She begins by discussing why Regan's concept of inherent value is flawed. Regan constantly discusses the concept, but never directly defines it and only justifies it with negative concepts. He states that all subjects-of-life – those with sentient capacities – have inherent value, but he never establishes where the line is between sentient and non-sentient. Warren argues that if there is no difference between age, sex, or gender; there should not be a division between more sentient and less sentient.
The position taken by Warren is less strict but is applied to all species regardless of bias. Warren agrees with Regan in that humans should not go out of their way to treat animals cruelly, but that we do not have a defined objective to prevent harm from coming to them. This is a strictly deontological perspective from Warren. It eliminates the feeling of having violated someone's rights if there was no intent. Warren argues that unless there is a good reason, harm should not come to animals. He justifies this difference in human rights and animal rights by explaining that it is impossible for humans and non-humans to communicate and reach moral compromise.
Regan would completely disagree with the middle ground that Warren has taken. Regan may even go so far as to define Warren's argument as speciesism. Warren argues that we cannot extend moral equality to animals because “we cannot negotiate a treaty with them.” Regan would refute this by stating that there could be no reason for harm to come to an animal. Suppose that we could reason with animals. Does the fact that we are now able to communicate with them mean that we should change the way we are treating them? This may be as much a flaw within our species in not being able to understand them than them not wanting to negotiate with us. Regan would argue that animals have value and should not be harmed regardless of whether we are able to speak to them or not. To assume that animals are lesser than us because they cannot understand us, without us even attempting to understand them, is speciesist.
Regan would continue his argument to the extent that we need to protect sentient animals. Warren states that, “we cannot always solve the problems which they [animals] may cause.” Regan would respond with the reasoning that these problems are caused because we have intruded on them. Warren has an anthropocentric viewpoint on animals in relation to humans. In regards to the rats example given by Warren, Regan would argue that the rats would have been there regardless; humans have merely settled on top of them. This gives us a duty to protect them, because we have displaced them. Just because we cannot communicate to the rats that we believe that they are an inconvenience, does not mean that we are not the ones that have originally caused the problem.
Original Prompt: http://parenethical.com/phil149win12/prompt-06-reading-for-the-conversation-contd/
I would probably side with Regan in regards to the extension of moral equality to animals. Just because we do not speak the same language as animals, does not mean we can not negotiate some sort of treaty with them. For example, most large dogs could overtake young children. However, most dog owners have established a "treaty" with their dogs. Their agreement would be similar to providing food, shelter, and affection to the dog. In return, the dog reciprocates affection and protects the family. Although we are not able to "speak" to dogs, we are still able to form a treaties with the animals.
ReplyDeleteI like the point that you made in the last paragraph about humans needing to fix the problem of animals because we indirectly caused them. And that is true when you say that we have a duty to care about rats because we have removed them from their natural habitat. I hadn't thought of it in that way but you're right. I feel like Warren tries to minimalize her specieist views as well as being anthropocentric. She clearly believes that humans have the right to use animals (only for a good purpose). But I feel like there is a flaw in that because someone in the world would consider different things a good reason to kill. Some cultures slit the throats of live chickens for rituals. It's not humane, but it was a good for someone. So I feel that using Warren's argument, it justifies the treatment of animals in whichever manner we want, cruel or not because someone in the world will condone it.
ReplyDeleteI really appreciate Warren's views. I think out of all the philosophers we have read so far she places the most value in clarity and reason. Regan's arguments are utopian in how they come across and have very little grounding in facts, clarity or (I believe at times) reality. I feel like Warren will be condemned as a speciesist and a anthropocentric individual because she has made no bones about pointing out that it's very hard to actually make any sort of working theory when you don't bother to adequately explain the basis behind it. Regan never explains what inherent value actually is so it's very hard for me to identify with his argument. It truly seems like he doesn't even understand his own idea enough to put it into words.
ReplyDelete