Prompt 05

(Regan, 87, 2nd full paragraph)

This passage from Regan's text suggests the idea that every animal and human has some sort of inherent value.  However, this passage goes on to agree with Singer in the idea that all creatures who have any sort of inherent value have the same amount of inherent value and no human  has the ability to differentiate this value.  This is almost directly relates to Singer's idea that any animal that is capable of experience suffering (Regan's criteria being 'inherent value') has the same rights as any human.  I agree strongly with the first line: 'Well, perhaps some will say that animals have some inherent value, only less than we do'.  I find myself almost getting a little frustrated that Regan like Singer immediately falls back to this idea that we cannot use reason, or autonomy or intellect as criteria.  However, isn't this some sort of gross oversimplification? He merely cites three characteristics and writes off any other possibility of distinguishing.  They also both cite this idea about how we cannot use this idea there are humans who are deficient of these abilities.  Which I think is a very weak fallback, basing an entire philosophy by sighting a disorder that is rare amongst humans.  I would have a little bit more faith in his argument if there was sort of acknowledgement that there are deficient animals as well.  What if there were to exist a condition in cows that removed their ability to experience suffering.  Would we then no longer have to care about treating cows equally?  While I don't have any idea if there is anything that even parallels this slightly but I feel that it is a point that is not recognized.  Because we have now must consider cows that can experience suffering, we must develop a more broad definition for animals that have inherent value.  While this point may not have been completely relevant the purpose of this statement was to prove that the selections made by Singer and Regan are both arbitrary.  I also think that if you want people to take this argument seriously there need to be biological considerations.  For me to feel that an animal is equal to myself I would need to know that an animal has the ability to feel more than just suffering and I am not going to denounce years of work that these two authors have done by spouting a few criteria that I have come up with on the spot.  I just feel that for these ideas to be accepted a better definition of why we are equal  must be determined.

I like some of the ideas proposed as well.  For example I like his three goals that he presents at the beginning of the reading. Those ideas including: getting rid of animal testing, getting rid of commercial agriculture and getting rid of hunting for sport.  I think that these ideas are slightly are reasonable and at least a first step to establishing animal equality.  I realized what I like about these ideas is that they represent better treatment of animals which I think is necessary.  However, what is delved upon more deeply suggests that these are not his only goals, he wishes for animals and humans to be considered on the same moral level.  His conclusion in the end though I had a slight problem with regarding farming.  Regan argues that increasing their living space, providing a more natural environment and more companions is still fundamentally wrong.  However, I would argue that caring for animals in these conditions is not wrong.  In fact the relationship between a farmer and animal in these conditions is actually a beautiful form of symbiosis in which a cow can provide milk (or chickens eggs, etc.) and the farmer provides the cow with shelter and safe pastures allowing each creature to prosper.  I like some of the ideas presented in this text however, I think that if these philosophers want to do anything more than philosophize these ideas of animal liberation they must try to take smaller less aggressive steps than immediately declaring that all animals are equal.