Animal Rights, Human Wrongs: An Introduction to Moral Philosophy

by Tom Regan

What gives an animal 'rights?' What makes product testing on animals wrong? In Animal Rights, Human Wrongs prominent activist and philosopher Tom Regan skillfully puts forth the argument for animal rights through the exploration of two questions central to moral theory: What makes an act right? What makes an act wrong? Taking into consideration moral theories such as contractarianism, utilitarianism, and Kantian ethics, Regan provides the theoretical framework that grounds a responsible pro-animal rights perspective, and ultimately explores how asking moral questions about other animals can lead to a better understanding of ourselves. The necessity of making a transition from moral theory to moral practice becomes startlingly clear as Reagan examines the commonplace, everyday choices that would be affected by believing in a moral theory that affirms the rights of animals. For the many people who have ever wondered 'what difference does it make if animals have rights,' Animal Rights, Humans Wrongs provides a provocative and intriguing answer. For a discussion of animal rights tailored to a more general audience, see Empty Cages: Facing the Challenge of Animal Rights (Rowman & Littlefield, 2003).

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Vegan

156 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2003

About the author

Tom Regan was an American philosopher who specialized in animal rights theory. He was professor emeritus of philosophy at North Carolina State University, where he taught from 1967 until his retirement in 2001.

Regan was the author of numerous books on the philosophy of animal rights, including The Case for Animal Rights (1983), one of a handful of studies that have significantly influenced the modern animal rights movement. In these, he argued that non-human animals are what he calls the "subjects-of-a-life", just as humans are, and that, if we want to ascribe value to all human beings regardless of their ability to be rational agents, then to be consistent, we must similarly ascribe it to non-humans.

Reviews

[Mohammad Nourbakhsh · Rating 5 out of 5]

هرکس چرایی کار خود را بداند به چگونگی انجام آن پی خواهد برد. نیچه
کتاب دیدگاه های موافق و مخالف حقوق حیوانات را از منظر اخلاقی با توجه به شواهد فلسفی ؛ دینی و علمی بررسی می کند .
به ما می گوید که درست است که زندگی کردن ما ناگزیر با زجر دیگر موجودات همراه است اما بایست از قسمتی از این شر و ظلم که آگاهانه عامدانه و نظم داده شده است کم کنیم .
آینده بشریت به سمت گیاه خواری است و راه در جهان یکیست و آن هم راه راستی .
کتاب دلنشینی بود اما استدلال ها و نتیجه گیری های اخلاقی اش کمی پیچیده نوشته شده بودند ( نویسنده فلسفه خوانده است ) .

[C. · Rating 3 out of 5]

the tone is usually uncompromising, which often deceptively suggests that the main rival views are obviously flawed, so while I mostly agree with him as regards animal suffering and its moral import, I don't think his arguments pertaining to what grounds this import are as decisive and perspicuous as he takes them to be

or to put it more bluntly, if you're not already convinced that (non-human) animal suffering is morally significant - and that we should, accordingly, completely revise how we treat non-human animals - I reckon the book isn't likely to change your mind

[ferrigno · Rating 3 out of 5]

Basta una frase per screditare un intero libro?
A volte sì.

Regan argomenta così a proposito della sperimentazione animale. Si chiede: servirà a qualcosa? No, -si risponde- del resto tutti noi sappiamo che i farmaci hanno effetti collaterali, anche terribili. Quindi, -continua- a cosa è servita la sperimentazione animale se non è riuscita a eliminare gli effetti collaterali dei farmaci?

In una sola frase, Regan dimostra di non aver capito perché si fa e a cosa serve la sperimentazione animale. La tossicità dei farmaci si studia sugli animali per avere un'anticipazione di quanto un farmaco possa essere tossico sull'uomo, in modo da poter valutare se i benefici di un farmaco valgano i costi. Se andassimo alla ricerca di farmaci senza effetti collaterali, non avremmo neanche le farmacie.
E io, adesso, come faccio a fidarmi di ciò ha scritto nel suo libro?

Ad ogni modo, in sintesi. Gli animali fanno esperienza della vita, esattamente come gli uomini, quindi hanno diritti intrinseci di base, esattamente come gli uomini. Ne consegue che non andrebbero allevati (schiavitù), usati come fonte di cibo o per la ricerca (omicidio).

Se non ammettiamo la parità di diritti tra uomini e animali siamo degli "specisti", che è come dire razzisti.

Come dice Rosalind Hursthouse, le razze non esistono (come dimostrato dal genetista Luca Cavalli-Sforza); per questo il razzismo è un abominio. Le specie, invece esistono. Le differenze tra specie esistono. Rispettare gli animali fino a sacrificare gli interessi degli umani, forse è un po' troppo.

[Tom Burdge · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book does a perfect job at fulfilling its purpose; providing a basic, and convincing, view of deontological ethics in favour of animal rights (specifically, for "subjects of a life"); If you are convinced by rights based ethics, you will probably be convinced by Regans' arguments.

That is what this book should really be read for. If you want a basic introduction to the animal rights argument, read Singers' chapters on animals in Practical Ethics. If you want something slightly more complex, while staying on books aimed at the general public, read the whole of Animal Liberation.

[Princess Consuela Bananahammock · Rating 2 out of 5]

Meh. Skumläste många avsnitt, mycket tjöt om människan som art. Inte vad jag var ute efter. Också ganska förlegad idag.

[Matthew Trickett · Rating 4 out of 5]

Tom Regan gives a Kantian inspired 'rights' perspective to animal ethics. This is an accessible and very readable text from an important author in animal ethics. Regan advocates for abolishing the use of animals because, like humans, they are 'subjects of a life'. Killing or using them for fur or food, which are his examples, go against inherent rights that should be allowed to them. Explaining why humans deserve rights is the logic behind granting animals rights. What this book could use is some more examples of the types of exploitations that should be abolished. More work could also be covered in post-abolition living. He does not go into this because it is too grand a goal. I feel that at the end of this book, a more imploring work could be written in inspiring ways to promote animal rights and jump-start a movement.

[Ricardo Moreno Mauro · Rating 4 out of 5]

Un libro ameno de leer. Es un punto de vista interesante de uso de los animales, aunque, según mi visión, tiene algunas visiones y comentarios sesgados y sin sustento.