Comments due by 11:59pm this Sunday (9/1)
In class today we considered Tom Regan's essay "The Case for Animal Rights". In particular, we considered his view that animals are experiencing subjects of a life with inherent value and that our contemporary practices regarding animals systematically exploit them as our resources, treating them as things to be used to satisfy our ends and purposes. This, he contends, fails to show animals the proper respect due them as subjects with inherent value.
Here I would like to extend the conversation. Please watch these four videos (adding up to approximately 30 minutes) where Regan is interviewed (around 13 years ago) by Pat Kenny on an Irish TV show.
Part 1 is here. Part 2 is here. Part 3 is here. And part 4 is here.
In these videos, you might hear some familiar arguments and objections. Listen to how Regan responds to them. How would you respond? What objections might you raise to Regan's views? Does Regan make any good points here? Does any of this stuff challenge your behavior/practices?
Take advantage of this opportunity to talk with others about some important, and obviously very practical, material. Press and challenge each other. Demand reasons. Evaluate arguments. But, of course, always do so in a way that is gracious and charitable and humble.
I agree with Regan's view on the first question as to where to draw the line on what living creatures have rights. He mentioned that he draws the line at beings that know they're on this world and know their environment. I would think this is a good point because if something can experience pain, fear, relief, etc, then it really can't do anything with rights.
ReplyDeleteRegan also produces a good point when asked what should be done about the animals killing other animals situation. He stated that humans are not on a predator/prey relationship with animals. I do not believe that to be totally true. There are people living in harsh environments that require animal products for survival. They should be entitled to hunt to survive daily life.
These points really hit home to a point because I do agree that eating animals simply because we can is unjustified. It does challenge my views to some extent as in I shouldn't eat animals that experience feelings and strive for their well being. I do believe it is justified to eat the animals that just simply go through the motions of life and do not know what life is and what it means. Furthermore, if I were in a situation to where I had to hunt for food due to living in a harsh, secluded environment or because I simply cannot afford the rising food prices I would believe that it would be okay to consume animal products since that puts me into a predator/prey relationship.
One of the arguments from the audience and interviewer against Regan was the predator/prey argument. They suggested that it was okay to eat meat just because we see nonhuman animals doing as such. I do not totally agree with that. Going part-way on what Regan said, a good population of the world does not live by a predator/prey lifestyle. We have a choice in what we eat, and we do not need to necessarily kill to survive. I do however, agree with what Ethan said before me. Those of us humans who do live in harsh climates and in low income societies have a more justified reason in the killing of animals to survive. If there were no industrialized societies, ALL humans would have to do that. Since this is not the case, we do not all need to kill animals to survive.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Regan's aspect on where to 'draw the line'. I agree that the line should be drawn to include those nonhuman animals that are cognitive of their surroundings and their presence on this world. I also disagree with the interviewer/audience in saying that nonhuman animals do not have a conscious/conscious thought. We cannot truthfully say that. Just because they have not shown the same level of consciousness as humans have, does not mean they do not have one.
Another argument that does not have my total agreement is the argument about how our bodies are physiologically able to consume meat.Not to mention the whole "We eat meat because we like it." While that may be true, it is because we have evolved to suit our diet, which has already included meat for thousands of years, since we had had to hunt to survive. I agree with Regan's arguments against that idea.
While I am not a huge animal rights activist or anything like that, I agree with what Regan's arguments were in the interview, and in the article that we read. I do lean more towards Singer's point of view, that the use of animals could be condoned in extreme cases, and I am not a vegetarian by any means. However, these arguments do make me rethink my view on the 'animal rights' subject.
I believe that Regan did a good job answering many of the questions. For example, when it was brought up that animals were eaten in the Bible, Regan pointed out that animals were not eaten until the fall of mankind when man sinned. Thus, in a perfect world, humans would not eat other animals. I also thought Regan had a good answer when he talked about drawing the line. The line of giving rights should be drawn at living beings that understand pain and know when they are in it and when they are not. In these two points that Regan mentioned I agree with him. No one should afflict anyone or anything with pain if the victim can feel it and can understand that they are suffering and are not feeling pleasure.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I did disagree with Regan in a few of his stances. Even though he claims that animals can comprehend fear and can make a choice to run from a predator, we really have no way to know. Much like the audience member mentioned, a Gazelle runs from a lion for a bit but then stops and eats like nothing ever happened. The lion could still be chasing it, however the animal shows no shock or fear in being chased. Thus, for all we know it could have run because it simply smelled another animal rather than running in fear of its life. We don’t know the consciousness of animals and the pain they do or do not feel. Thus it is difficult to make such radical changes on things that are neither certain or even within the grasps of our knowledge at this point in time.
Therefore, even though Regan made good points and answered many questions well, my stance on the animal liberation issue has not been altered because as humans, we have no idea what animals really go through because we don’t have their consciousness or thought process.
Mollie Backode
In my opinion, even though we do not know the exact consciousness of an animal, we should never cease to treat that animal humanely regardless. Even if humans do not know the thought process of an animal, it still has perceptions and the senses to feel. There is no great reason to put animals in physical harm or keep them in conditions that sicken them. Even though we don't know how they think, we know what makes them physically unwell and so should avoid causing them suffering since that is in out capability. I think Regan would agree with this view.
ReplyDeleteI thought a good point Regan had was that we can't infer that we ought to do something just because we can do it. Just because our ancestors ate meat, doesn't mean we have to. We have the ability to eat meat, but we, as humans, can also survive on plant products. This is unlike predators that are carnivores.
There is no weight to the argument that "because other animals eat animals that means people should eat animals". We are humans, who can adapt to a vegan diet unlike a lion, for example.
--Monica T
I believe Regan answered all those questions very good. He was attacked with certain questions at times, such as what he would do if he was put in a boat with humans and animals, who would he throw out first, his answer to that was good, although when it comes to animals rights I don't think it was a logical question for the discussion. But i do agree with him when it comes to his statement about how the animal that was cut up and put in the freezer, how it doesn't have the same rights that we humans do, that it's basically cruel to take advantage of them. I also agree with Molly and her comment with how Regan mentioned the Bible and how in a perfect world animals don't eat animals.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching Regan's responses I somewhat agree with what he is arguing. I do agree that in today's society we see animals as just a resource that we can use and do with as we please, but this way of thinking does not seem ethical. We decided as a nation long ago that doing this to humans was wrong so what makes doing this to animals ok? I think this was a point Regan was trying to get at, especially when the one audience member said, "we eat meat because we like too, or just because we can." Regan was trying to show that just because we have these opportunities doesn't mean we need to take them.
ReplyDeleteIn the interview it didn't seem, to me, that Regan responded much to what people were saying. He did give examples and feed back but I think he could have defended his his topic a lot more. One of the examples that the host gave was a lion chasing a gazelle, and that once it was out of harms reach it stops and goes on its way. They question how intelligent animals really are, and if they really do know the world around them, and since we suspect they do not really realize the world around them it makes it ok to eat them. But I do not think this is true that animals do not realize the world around them. While watching a lion documentary, don't judge, but when one water buffalo was being attacked, the whole heard acted together to stop the attack. To me this shows that the herd acts as a family and will protect their own kind, just like humans do.
Yes I do eat meat, and I do think it is acceptable to do so, but I do think there need to be more limits to how these animals are treated in the process. Regan is on the extreme side for me, but I think his thought of not just using them as we please is an acceptable and reasonable request. We provide services to the animals and in return they provide a service to us.
--Alyssa T.
I agree. I believe that the justice system needs to employ stiffer fines and more jail time for these violations of humane treatment towards animals. But, that brings the question of what is the baseline for humane treatment of animals.
DeleteWhen it comes to the argument Regan makes, I do find much of what he says agreeable. However i must point out that I think it only applies to those of us living in developed nations. Some of the others mentioned that people who live in harsh environments might have a much more limited choice resulting in an instance which they must hunt to survive. That is the biggest disagreement I have with Regan is the fact he seems to sway so far that we can never touch an animal even for survival, and although he says those are the hard questions that you can't use to justify the easy ones we face(i.e when he talked about looking at the restaurant menu) it is also not a reason to dodge the question so his point of never using animals holds up.
ReplyDeleteThe fact i do agree with him on though is when people were arguing that we get to eat meat because we always have, and we like to, doesn't give us a real good reason to. If we live under the perception that something is okay because we like it, or our ancestors did it, then we could live in a world that nothing is ever changed for the better. I like to incorporate this idea into evaluating my use of meat. Although, I don't find it morally wrong to eat an animal, perhaps I should cut back on meat consumption and only buy from procures that treat their animals well.
Although I do not completely agree with his total view on not using animals, I think the arguments he raise are solid and should be considered when looking at ones own lifestyle choices.
-Matt Powers
In part one I thought it was very interesting that Regan worked as a butcher through college and the reason that he quit working was because of him and his wifes involvment with the Anti-War movement. It all started from gandhi's preception of if you disagree with violence in the war why do you agree with animal violence. I agree with Regan's drawing the line, even though we do not know how nonhumane animals take pain or react to fear, it is still going to be done regardless and I think we should try to make it as quickly and harmlessly as possible when we kill an animal.
ReplyDeleteRegan claims that the only reason we eat meat is because we always have and like it and that is our only reason and I do not think that is the case. I disagree with him on that opinion. I personally think we have to eat meat and animals due to the fact that if we didn't the world would be so over populated with animals. For example: In class we discussed how many chickens were killed each year and it was 8 billion. If we stopped eatting meat for 5 years, that is 40 billion chickens that we would have on the world. That is a ridiculous amount chickens and that is only for chickens, same goes for cows and pigs but obviously the numbers would be different but would still be over populated.
I eat meat and regardless of what anyone say's to me and argues that it is wrong I think of the fact of how fast these animals would populate and there would be wild animals everywhere. Then we have to plant more crops for the worlds consumption and if there are more wild animals that we can not kill and eat, they will be eatting more of our crops than ever before. I personally do not think the world would function without people eatting meat.
-Dillon K.
Through out the interview I believe that Tom provides great responses to the topics that are brought forward. Now as Regan stated, he was used to be a butcher in his younger days, which can be related back to the lady who said "if slaughter houses had glass doors, then no one would eat meat." Perhaps Regan saw what the animals that were being put to death and simply could not handle it anymore due to the possible fact that he did not like to see the animals suffer. For some people, watching the animals suffer may not bother them because they are making the conscious decision to provide food for themselves.
ReplyDeleteThe next point that really stuck out to me was as the interview was coming to a close the topic of evolution was brought up. the theory that was mentioned was that one thing that lead us to evolve from chimps was the fact that we learned to use weapons and hunt for food and the extra protein lead us to evolve into human beings. His response was that just because it may have lead to our evolution, that it did not mean that we had to continue to do it in the future. This is a very good point, but it has been proven by many nutritionist that protein is a vital part of any diet. as a former university football player I can speak from experience that protein aids in the recovery of muscles during and after workouts.
Although Regan brings up very strong arguments, I will continue to consume meat. I have the luxury of not having to see or kill my own food. Also as stated in the interview, a quick "humane" death in the prime of the animals life, is much better then a slow painful death towards the end of its life. There are regulations as to how animals used for food sources are slaughtered which would hopefully allow them to fall into this category of "humane" deaths in their prime.
-Cameron K.
The opening of the interview finds Regan talking about animals in the bible. With myself being a Christian, I agree that in a perfect world before sin there would be no eating of animals, but after the fall of Adam and Eve, God still took care of them. Throughout the bible and the parables Jesus told, animals were eaten and sacrificed for the love of God. So how can someone say killing an animal only to sacrifice it is wrong when our own creator told us to do so as see in the story of Abraham sacrificing the lamb instead of his only son.
ReplyDeleteMy next point is that Tom said that animals that are in this world and those who are aware of this world have the equality of rights. Pat the host said that the gazelle does not understand that the lion is chasing him and stops and goes back to eating when the lion stops. he does not understand that the lion could still be nearby. A audience member also stated that animals do not have the same conscience that we do and therefore do not have freewill. The lion kills for survival. Back millions of years ago man killed animals for food because they needed energy. The indians used every piece of that animal. bones for tools, skin for clothing and meat for energy. We have evolved to use the God given resources on this earth. I am not saying that we use all these resources, but we are called by Christ to be stewards of the earth. If we kill and eat an animal we are to replace that life with a new life. This makes sure that the circle of life moves on.
I know Ton Regan did not touch on it, but I think another important topic of animal rights is what do we do about natural disasters that wipe out an entire specie or population of a specie? Nature does not choose to kill hundreds of animals, but yet it still occurs.
Also as a biology major and Pre-vet student, I believe if we wanted to all go to a vegan diet we would have to evolve back to our original makings because we actually do not have the physiology to eat a strict vegan or plant diet. many years ago it is believed that we used our appendixes for the breakdown of plant material. Today they are not sure if we still use them and if for what we use them. Tom Regan said that our biology of our bodies allows us to be vegans, but yet if we all of a sudden went vegan it would involve some evolution.
-Matt P.
I think that Regan did an okay job in answering the audience's questions; for some of the responses he just gave examples instead of answering or giving his opinion.
ReplyDeleteOne of the topics was that we just meat because we do/can. I do not believe this; since way back when we have hunted animals because we need the protein that is in the meat. Yes there are supplements or whatever you can consume instead of meat but majority of those supplements have side affects and will change your body for the worse. However I do not agree with how some of the animals are treated or cared for in some of the farms/ factories. I agree with more of Singers ways of thinking that animals should have more rights/ regulations of how they are treated at the farms in certain cases and not jump to the extremes.
--Michelle F.
I do not agree with Regan's views. I do believe some animals are not cared for as they should be. There are cases where owners treat their pets and livestock very poorly, these cases make the news. The well cared for animals are never publicized though. i find it very hard to relate to his points of view, I was raised in a family where we raised our food and also went out and hunted. My family never killed just for the pleasure of killing it, we always ate it. I do not think people eat meat just because we "like" the taste so much as humans learned to survive off the protein. If I had to choose between Singer and Regan's ideas I would have to side with Singer although they both seem too liberal for me.
ReplyDeleteVikki B.
I think Regan did a really good job of answering all those questions and staying calm during the interview, especially when those two audience members were bickering. Anyway, Tom, did say something that I really liked, he said "Whenever you draw a line, draw it with a pencil because you might want to erase it cause you find something out that you didn't know before." That is really true because just being in this class so far has made me rethink a lot of my views because I've never really thought about them like we have in the class. There was a point the woman in the audience made when she brought up that if slaughter houses had glass walls, people would be vegetarians.I don't know about other people, but I would most likely still eat meat anyway. When animals are killed for their meat, it's a lot cleaner and humane than it was back then. And it was also brought up that that is the reason why a lot of animals are even bred, for their meat.
ReplyDeleteCristin S.
I do agree with him when he says that animals are not treated the way they should but at the same time I don't agree with how he is trying to make it sound. not all animals are treated badly. people have animals as pets and they absolutely love those animals. they take care of them and think about the animals point of views. some animals are meant to be food and are bred for that purpose. it is something that we need to eat and survive as a healthy strong person. in a world today it is survival of the fittest where the humans are the fit ones and we are that way I think because of what we eat. as time as gone on we have learned to make the food we eat taste better so we want to eat it. back in the cave days we ate meat but didn't have the seasonings we have now so obviously we didn't start eating meat because of the taste. I agree with animals being used for food but I don't agree with them being treated badly any time during their life whether they are going to be used for food or as a pet.
ReplyDeleteChelsea M.
I think that while watching Regan answer these questions, he is truly trying to get across the choice to draw lines and to respect animals that feel and think. when asked the question about how the people in the old days ate meat. He brought up the point on how in the bible they didn't eat meat till after the fall of humans to the fall of sin. He just wants us to learn how to respect the animals because of how the animal has a life and knows of life and everything around them. He says something that I really like was that where you draw the line, draw the line with a pencil. Regan is very polite the whole time talking. He thanks the people who are against him and he always seen to just be very intelligent answers and never makes someone feel stupid for asking.
ReplyDelete-Sara Hannon