(regan, 83, paragraphs 2-4)
Regan's approach to animals rights comes from the idea of contractarianism. Essentially he says, morality consists of a set of rules that individuals voluntarily agree to abide by. People who understand and accept the terms of the contract are covered directly and have rights that are created and subsequently protected by the contract. This contract extends to young children, although they are not able to sign by proxy they are protected. THe issue is the taken one step further and applied to animals.
Some animals have sentimental value within a family and in some cases people consider their pets to part of their family. THerefore the rules that extend to children also can be extended to animals such as family pets. Also animals that are considered to be endangered fall under this category, people spend their life and hold jobs that are geared toward preserving and protecting various species that are in danger of going extinct. The problem comes from the fact that the animals that we eat on a daily basis are completely disregarded. We don't have any connection to them and therefore once again the disconnect that humans have enters in to play. A farm animal essentially means nothing to us and is just a product and a means to an end.
Regan says that contractarianism isn't an appropriate justification for the moral status of humans at the end of the day. THerefore, if it isn't an adequate approach to justify the equality and rights of humans, it cannot appropriately be applied to animals. Regan goes once step further an examines Rawl's version of this theory...Contractarianism does not fully work because within the theory there are contradictions. By virtue of what the system and concept is, we realistically do not have direct duties to younger children. Therefore we definitely don't have a duty toward animals. However, we would never do something that would be viewed as wrong in terms of the treatment of children but yet we have no problem doing something that could be considered wrong in the treatment of animals. Therefore, you can't fully say and justify that killing animals and eating them is okay.
response to: http://parenethical.com/phil149win12/prompt-05-reading-for-the-conversation/
I can't really agree that it's impossible to justify killing and eating animals. Yes we as humans have the tendency to eat whatever we want because we are more valuable than that species or because our interest or more important, or whatever the justification is. But humans aren't the only ones that kill other animals and eat them. Some animals were born to eat other animals and some animals were born to be eaten by other animals, that's just the way it is. I know that it really isn't the same thing because humans farm and mass produce livestock, but the need to kill and eat other animals is very primal and hard to ignore. I agree that humans need to change how we go about mass producing meat because it's clear the the quality of life the animals have is extremely poor. But we can't completely eliminate meat eating from our lives. The idea of contractarianism is interesting because it says that humans have the duty to protect and respect any animals that can't vouch for themselves, which in reality is every other species on the planet. It is way too broad to consider, and life would not work they way it has evolved to work.
ReplyDeleteI found your summary of Regan's views accurate however I believe contractarianism is a flawed ideology. Regan says people who do not understand morality are opted into this system by the adherence to it of those who care for them. Thus others in the contract have no duty to them as individuals but as an extension of those already in the contract who have sentimental feelings for them. What then of young human orphans? They cannot understand morality and are oftentimes looked after by those who have no real sentimental feelings towards them. Are they then inferior to a beloved dog in terms of moral responsibilities? This system completely overlooks the individual if they are incapable of grasping this concept by themselves. It seems outwardly to promote animal rights, etc but in reality it is anthroprocentrism to the point of removing any sort of direct moral responsibility from creatures other than capable human beings. Specisism in the most fundamental way.
ReplyDeleteI can see how Regan has his issues with contractarianism and I can even see how this leads to his final argument. Out of all the reading we have had thus far, his seems to be the most logically flowing. However I think he fails to take the concept of human choice into his theory. The reason we contract to protect our children is we choose to. He states that every human is different but doesnt recognize that each might make his/her own choice. Some parents kill their children, and while disgusting, shows the extent to which an individual's free will should be carried out. This is the idea that I think should be extended to animals. Every individual should be able to make his/her own decision on how they will personally treat animals and go about protecting their rights.
ReplyDeleteI feel like the only animals qualified to be under the contract are pets an animals with organizations aimed to protecting certain animals, like whales or wolves. Animals that meet our dinner plates frequently rarely fall under the contract; few people have sentimental feelings towards cows, pigs, or chickens.i think that contractarianism is interesting yet flawed. I don't think that it's fair that those who cannot abide under the contract do not have such rights or moral obligations unless someone cares enough to extend rights to them. How would we view orphans or beggars who do not have people to care for them? Do we owe them nothing? I feel like to be under this contract and force young children under it because we have sentimental values for them is violating their ability to decide for themselves whether or not they want to bind to it.
ReplyDelete