Phil Questions #7

1. What, for Regan, is the fundamental basis upon which he objects to the use of animals as means to human
ends? How does this basis differ from Singer's philosophical approach to animal ethics?
2. Explain Regan's critique of the cruelty-kindness view.
3. Explain Regan's cup analogy, which he uses to critique the utilitarian defense of animals. How does Regan's
notion of subject of a life differ philosophically from Singer's use of the notion of subjective experience?
4. Explain Regan's argument in response (p. 23) to the claim that nonhuman animals have inherent value, just
less inherent value than humans. Do you find his argument to be strong or weak? Explain.
5. Do you agree with Sagoff's argument that being in a moral community with non-human nature requires the
expansion of the same moral rights to animals as we ascribe to humans? Explain.
6. Explain how Sagoff uses the idea of basic rights to argue that humans have an unlimited obligation to
protect all animals, domestic and wild, from harm. Do you agree that this is the inevitable implication of the
animal liberation/rights position? Explain.

1. He objects because all animals have fundamental and basic rights as long as the fit
his subject of a life criterion, that our own life has importance to us as individuals.
While singer does believe that all have inherent value, Regan takes that value and
sees it as equal among all subjects of a life.
2. While kindness is well and good, it can be limited in its scope, and giving
kindness to some doesnt get rid of the negative implications of denying it to
others. The same goes for cruelty. Both allow for a systematic discrimination in
their ethical viewpoint. It matters about the beings themselves, rather then how it
is we treat them.
3. To a utilitarian, what has value isnt the cup, or the individual it represents.
Rather it is the positive or negative emotion that has the value. The differing
notion is that all who have inherent value have it equally; it doesnt depend of
subject experiences of the particular individual.
4. He believes that because there is no way to differentiate the inherent value
between species without also applying it to the disadvantaged among humanity,
one cannot say that an animal has less inherent value. The problem with this
argument is if one were to say that those individuals did have lesser value then
that of an ordinary human.
5. To a point. I believe that in order to function as a good neighbor in the biotic
community. There must be an extension of courtesy that is givin to our animal
brethren in so much as humans give to one another. However, I dont believe they
are entitled to nor truly desire the full allotment of human rights. For example
owning a human is something generally frowned upon, where as owning a pet is
not. If we were to treat the pet with full human moral rights, we would be forced
to release the pet immediately. Would that not cause the pet to starve if it could
not fend for itself, and thus be an indirect killing of the animal?

6. To Sagoff, the idea of positive right translates to government, in this case human,
intervention in the preservation of the rights of animals. However that is not how
rights work. Most rights only come into play until they violate the rights of
another. What if in order to protect a wild animal from harm, we prevented
another from eating? What if through our intervention we disrupt that natural
order further? Ultimately I cant support the unlimited protection of all animals
because it is infeasible, impractical, and morally unjust in that it interferes with
nature as a system.