Pleidooi voor dierenrechten

Dierenrechtenbibliotheek

by Tom Regan

Dieren zijn ‘levensbewuste wezens’ en beschikken over eigenwaarde. Daarom mogen wij, mensen, ze niet zonder meer als middel gebruiken of inzetten voor onze doeleinden. In de vleesindustrie of als proefdier in laboratoria bijvoorbeeld.

Dit (kantiaanse) standpunt werkte de Amerikaanse filosoof Tom Regan (1938–2017) uit in Pleidooi voor dierenrechten dat sinds de verschijning in 1983 een klassieker is. Tot op de dag van vandaag is Pleidooi voor dierenrechten bijzonder invloedrijk. Het speelt een hoofdrol in het denken over dieren en allerlei debatten rondom dierenrechten. Dit meesterwerk verschijnt nu voor het eerst in een fraaie vertaling van Joris Capenberghs. Met een nawoord van dierenbeschermer Michel Vandenbosch.

‘Het is misschien wel de meest consistente en meest onwrikbare verdediging van dierenrechten. »
Tom L. Beauchamp, Georgetown University
‘Mocht het van de dieren afhangen, dan stond het meesterwerk van Tom Regan op elke leeslijst.
Mocht het van mij afhangen, ook.’ Johan Braeckman

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Animals, Vegan, Activism, Health, Science

768 pages, Paperback

First published October 1, 1983

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

[Dayna · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this book. I read it along with Peter Singers Book "Practical Ethics" a few years ago.
I began homeschooling my two daughters this year and I am using Peter Singers' "Practical Ethics" as a class in Debate/Ethics for a class for them. We've had some AMAZING discussions so far and it's been wonderful learning from them and teaching them - NOT what to think, but how to think!

I only wish I had kept this book several years ago!

[Lisa Vegan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Cogent and convincing (to me) arguments for the rights of animals and humans from a philosophy professor who believes in animal rights. I read an earlier edition after I heard him speak at a conference.

[Alexander · Rating 3 out of 5]

I know this book is supposed to be a classic, but I found it rather a chore to deal with. It's a big book, and it has a number of good features, but since everyone seems to be talking about those I will just list a couple of complaints.

My main dislike was the pondering way in which it handled certain topics, such as animal's mental life, which managed somehow to cover the terrain exhaustively while simultaneously misreading and therefore failing to engage with the alternative views we spend so long seeing "refuted."

There is, besides that, the central thesis of the book, which is the extension of rights to animals, a view that I don't endorse at all, and which strikes me as misguided. Rights simply don't seem like the right way to conceptualize our ethical relationships with animals. Rights most naturally arise in political contexts, where we speaking of a number of free and equal individuals coming together into a political community, something that simply doesn't find a grip on on our relationships with animals. "Rights" language therefore doesn't strike me as a very useful way to talk about how we ought to treat non-human animals.

[Mark Tranter · Rating 5 out of 5]

Incredibly well-argued. Don't think anyone could read this and continue to eat meat.

[Liquidlasagna · Rating 5 out of 5]

one of the top books of the 80s for Ethics

The University of California Press 1984

[William · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is definitely more of a 3.5 than a flat 3-star. The Case for Animal Rights is undeniably a classic in animal rights literature, and I think Tim Regan’s work is valuable. Ultimately, this book was a little bit of a low score for me for two big reasons:

1) I don’t claim to be a philosopher, but Ive read a good deal of theory, metaphysics, ethics, ontology, etc. Many of the points Regan takes time to take down are extremely valuable for someone not versed in these arguments and their counterarguments. However, for me, a lot here was unnecessary and sometimes got repetitive. Regan acknowledges this in the intro, noting that its impossible to write a book arguing ethics that fits both a layperson with no background and a philosophy professor. I think he does a great job leading readers through potentially tangled discussions of morality and values, but I personally did not need the plodding minutiae laid out. It got to the point where in some chapters I skipped to the summary that Regan places at the end. If I had questions about something referenced or a detail I wanted more insight to, I’d go back. Otherwise, I kinda knew the material being covered.

2) Regan’s conception of subjects-to-a-life feels antiquated now in 2022. His basic thesis specifically argues that mammals have moral rights because they are “subjects of lives,” that is, roughly, conscious, sentient beings with an experiential welfare. This view feels both too much and too little. Regan spends so much time building this edifice of reasoned thought where I would have asked: what makes these markers denote subjects to a life? It feels very much like judging a fish on how well it can climb trees; mammals certainly match human beings most closely in the way they socialize, rear their young, act out their emotions and thoughts - but how egotistical must we be to only extend dignity to things that are similar to us? And why such an arbitrary line? It could be redrawn anywhere to include or exclude other fauna and flora.

Regan fully acknowledges this (p.366), but for me the framework suffers. This is one of those places where this level of “reasoned abstraction” just gets unnecessarily in its own weeds. Regan’s conception (within this book) of his “subjects to a life” is needlessly overwrought and arbitrary. The Case for Animal Rights is important work in animal ethics, but a framework (I believe) we do not need to hold fast to. 3.5 stars.

[Rory Armstrong · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very good, but heavy read. The book covers the philosophical aspects of the animal rights movement, taking into consideration the awareness of animals, the complexity of animal awareness, animal welfare, ethical though and theory concerning animals, a breakdown of the various ethical views along with critisms, Regan's outline of the rights view, and finishing with the implications of his view.
The parts I really liked where Regan explained the various ethical theories and ideas. This was useful for me as I hadn't looked at these previously and to have them explained and the critisms to them given was a great experience. However a lot of the book was quite deep and difficult to follow. This is naturally as it is supposed to be for professional philosophers and not for lay people so I will admit that I did struggle quite a bit though the book.

If you're looking for a meaty book to explain the ethical reasons for animal rights and the logic behind it, this is your book. However if you're a layman, be prepared for a challenging, but rewarding read.

[Robert · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is the logical and moral conclusion to The Origin of Species. It is an excellent primer to moral philosophy in general, so that it is naturally an excellent primer to fun questions like, "What is consciousness?" Even if you have no interest in animal rights issues, most philosophy schools are finding AR to be an elegant lens through which to introduce these concepts.

The Case for Animal Rights finds a place in the world for this species of ours full of humility, dignity, and honor. Were we all to come to the conclusions reached in this volume, it would be the first step along the very long path to an honest and true "civilization". Most humans live every day on the lifeboat -- and as such, the rules are different when every day is a life-or-death struggle lacking any semblance of free agency. Here in the Western world however, we could do worse than to embrace the ideas in this volume... should we wish to truly become the leaders we imagine ourselves.

[Heather Browning · Rating 4 out of 5]

Regan makes a solid case for the moral consideration of animals, though I find the discourse of 'rights' unnecessary. The book is long but thorough, covering many issues to do with ethics, moral principles and our treatment of animals, as well as engaging with some counter-arguments. Not always easy going, but a central text in the field.

[Kramer Thompson · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was quite a comprehensive look at animals and animal ethics, although I do not believe that worked in the book's favour. Certain parts (the first two chapters in particular) I found to be unnecessary. Perhaps these chapters were more relevant when the book was initially written, but the argument presented by Regan's interlocutors were not at all convincing or persuasive to my mind (and hence his rebuttals of them seemed superfluous).

I also did not find Regan's arguments regarding animal ethics very convincing. His "refutation" of utilitarianism seemed quite basic to me, and he didn't seem to really get to the heart of Singer's debunking arguments of our common sense moral intuitions. I found his ethical theory quite implausible as well, particularly the lexical priority he gives in regards to avoiding harm to normal human adults over most (or perhaps all) extant non-human animals. This non-aggregative element of his account is incredibly implausible to me.

It also struck me (as well as many other philosophers, given his discussion of this problem in the 2004 preface) as inconsistent to say that, say, 500 billion dogs should be killed to save one child in a lifeboat case, but that no animal experimentation is permissible to test the safety of drugs (because taking the drug is voluntary). If animal death is required to save humans in either case, it seems that it should be permissible (or impermissible) in both cases.

Overall, I don't really think this is worth reading for anyone not deeply interested in animal ethics. Even then, the arguments seem dated and defended at far too great length for their simplicity and, in many cases, their triviality given contemporary philosophical ethics discussions.

[John Wasmuth · Rating 3 out of 5]

Betyget reflekterar inte idéerna i boken, som är revolutionerande och viktiga, utan språket. Den är oerhört torrt skriven med många upprepningar. Sannolikt är målgruppen främst akademiska filosofer.

[Maria Elise Bjarnesdatter · Rating 5 out of 5]

Quite heavy, but well argued and convincing. 5⭐️

[Tully · Rating 4 out of 5]

sound Kantian arguments, coupled to a rich description of the higher mammals as "subjects to life". Very well-organized and lucid; perfect for undergraduate ethics debates

[Nicholas · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is deep, had to spend a lot of time re-reading portions. Helped me confirm my decision to not eat meat

[Nick · Rating 1 out of 5]

Couldn't make it through this book. To be specific, couldn't even finish the updated introduction. Skimmed the rest. Don't agree with any of the concepts in the book.

[Erwin Vermeulen · Rating 5 out of 5]

THE theoretical background for every animal rights activist.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

A FAMOUS PHILOSOPHICAL DEFENSE OF ANIMAL RIGHTS

Tom Regan (born 1938) is professor emeritus of philosophy at North Carolina State University, where he taught from 1967-2001. He has also written 'Empty Cages: Facing the Challenge of Animal Rights,' 'Defending Animal Rights,' etc.

He wrote in the Preface to this 1983 book, "I wanted to write a book that would be accessible to all those who labor for the cause of the better treatment of animals... a book that would lay the philosophical foundations of the animal rights movement as I conceive it. On the other hand, I hoped to write a book that would command the attention of my professional peers in philosophy..." (Pg. xi)

He argues, "given evolutionary theory... we have every reason to suppose that the members of other species also are conscious." (Pg. 19) He suggests, "There is, then, no SINGLE reason for attributing consciousness of a mental life to certain animals. What we have is a SET of reasons, which, when taken together, provides what might be called the Cumulative Argument for animal consciousness." (Pg. 27-28) He asserts that in terminating the life of suffering/ill animals "Though we do for them what they cannot do for themselves, we do not impose our will on them... we comply with their will, as this is known to us." (Pg. 114)

He says about fellow animal rights philosopher Peter Singer, "[we] must acknowledge an enormous debt to Singer. The growing public awareness of the gruesome details of factory farming is in no small measure due to the wide readership of his work, especially 'Animal Liberation: The Definitive Classic of the Animal Movement.'... But this debt to Singer's work does not imply that his moral argument for vegetarianism is adequate." (Pg. 220) He adds, "Even the most sympathetic reader... will fail to find the necessary calculations [of the aggregate "better" consequences] in Singer's work. They simply are not there." (Pg. 223)

He states, "That is the destination toward which this work has been moving from the outset. It is not an act of kindness to treat animals respectfully. It is an act of justice. It is not 'the sentimental interests' of moral agents that grounds our duties of justice to children, the retarded, the senile, or other moral patients, including animals. It is respect for their inherent value." (Pg. 280)

He later argues, "because [animals] are not moral agents, they can neither do what is right nor what is wrong... the inability of animals in this regard shows they cannot be anything but innocent. The principle that it is prima facie wrong to harm the innocent demonstrably applies to our dealings with animals." (Pg. 295) He concludes that "the ultimate objective of the rights view is the total dissolution of the animal industry as we know it." (Pg. 348) Furthermore, "tests of new products and drugs involving animals are not morally justified. These tests violate the rights of these animals. They are not morally tolerable. All ought to cease." (Pg. 382)

Regan's book is ESSENTIAL READING for anyone studying the issue of animal rights and animal welfare.

[Thomas · Rating 5 out of 5]

Regan, Tom. The Case for Animal Rights. 1983. U. of California P, 2004.
Published almost a decade after Peter Singer’s influential Animal Liberation, Tom Regan’s The Case for Animal Rights argues that the preference utilitarianism on which Singer based his argument for the moral value of animals was inadequate in that it could justify the sacrifice of the individual in the name of the greater good. Singer’s book was polemical in its approach, detailing the abuse of animals in medicine, science, and industry. Both Singer and Regan concluded that ethics demands we adopt a vegetarian diet. Regan is more restrained in tone, arguing against the moral status of animals in several major ethical theories, including Kantian deontology, W. D. Ross’s prima facie deontology, and the contractarian views of John Rawls. Ultimately, Regan defends a more radical biocentrism than Singer and the others. Animals, Regan says, deserve moral consideration not because of their utility or ability to suffer but because they are “individuals who have inherent value. . . and are always to be treated in ways that show respect for their independent value, not out of kindness or compassion but as a matter of strict justice.” In other words, the categorical imperative seems to apply to animals as much as it would to human children or people otherwise incapable of acting as moral agents. They are all, he says, “moral patients” whose individual welfare should matter to us. 5 stars.

[Helena · Rating 5 out of 5]

An absolutely essential book. Regan was far ahead of his time in pioneering a truly rights-based theory that encompasses justice for nonhumans. However, I do not believe that speciesism is merely an attitude or ideology but rather real, material violence that is institutionalized and has become embedded within our social and economic relations. Therefore liberal rights theories on their own are insufficient in eradicating speciesist violence. While we need a more comprehensive, structural and historical understanding of speciesism, Regan's animal rights theory should be used as a foundation for all animal activists and theorists alike.

[Kai Chevannes · Rating 4 out of 5]

the case takes morality as a system that integrates our considered moral intuitions without contradicting itself

1. animals are individuals with beliefs and desires
2. justice is about inherent value, not intrinsic value of pleasures and pains: those with a happy life are not of more value than those of a miserable life
3. inherent value is derived from the principle of respect
4. not all life has inherent value (i.e blades of grass), specifically subjects of a life have inherent value (beings who act on desires, feel pleasure and pains, etc)
5. moral agents and patients are not mere receptacles of well-being

[Frédéric Vachon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Un livre long, complexe, mais également profond et argumenté. À lire à la suite de libération animale de Peter Singer pour un premier aperçu des critiques que l'on peut apporter au point de vue utilitariste (mais aussi contractuel), bien que la lectrice gagnerait à lire d'autres critiques contemporaines de ce point vue chez les féministes, anticapacitistes, etc. Si je ne considère pas cette oeuvre comme un incontournable de la littérature antispéciste, elle saura offrir des outils utiles pour débattre d'un point de vue éthique sur l'antispécisme.

[Miro · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a really philosophical book that doesn't just cover animal morality but also human morality and concepts like justice, awareness and utalitarianism. It's a big challenge but the book handles it really well, basing what he calls "the rights view" deep in philosophy, not letting critics call his position emotional or let other usual attacks get to him.
This is truly a masterpiece. I'd recommend everyone reading it, from carnivores to vegan, because even if you're not interested in animal ethics, it's for it for moral philosophy 101

[Dayton Martindale · Rating 4 out of 5]

The most interesting part is the discussion of alternate moral philosophies, most of which I thought he effectively critiqued, but I was less convinced that Regan’s rights view is the best alternative. It’s also a little dated, if you’re looking for animal rights books I am not sure I would recommend this unless out of academic interest.

[César Correa Martínez · Rating 5 out of 5]

Imprescindible para entender las diferentes corrientes y teorías filosóficas sobre los animales y las relaciones con los humanos, sobre la necesidad de crear condiciones urgentes de derechos morales hacia ellos, así como un texto necesario para acercarse al abolicionismo ético de toda forma de violencia humana hacia los animales.

[Dana · Rating 3 out of 5]

Although I agree with probably most of Regan’s opinions and ideas, I think the structure and writing style of the book made it not as easy to read as I would’ve anticipated. It’s an important book, and it might’ve not been the revolution Regan hoped for, but it is pretty revolutionary and sadly is as relevant today as it was when it was originally published.

[Kim Drnec]

Regan is a powerful philosopher. This book is a little heavy reading but worth it! His argument is clear and impossible to counter. If you read this book you'll seriously think about the way animals are treated in society

[Sean Peeters · Rating 5 out of 5]

Much preferred to Singer's utilitarianism

[Emma12345]

hi

[Chase · Rating 4 out of 5]

Just a bit too technical for me.

[Kitty]

much better arguments than peter singer