In 1975, a watershed event occurred when a book titled Animal Liberation by the Philosopher Peter Singer was published. The book has been inprint continuously since then, and it's been translated into many different languages. The book has been credited with launching the contemporary animal rights movement, although, as we'll see, Singer doesn't advocate for animal rights strictly speaking. Singer takes a utilitarian stance, like Jeremy Bentham did in his time, to argue that humans and non-humans are like, have an interest in not suffering and so far as comparisons can be made. We know that we share with other animals the ability to suffer physical pain for example, so we assume that animals have an interest in avoiding physical pain just as we do. In other words, if a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. This is what's called the equal consideration principle. We must give equal consideration to animals interest in not suffering as we do to humans interests in not suffering. Suffering is equally bad if it's felt by a person or a cow. To disregard animals interest in not suffering just because they're animals, is to engage in speciesism. Defined as a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interest of members of one's own species, and against those of members of other species. Speciesism is wrong just as racism and sexism are wrong. We should treat beings as individuals rather than as members of a species. After introducing this idea of equal consideration of interests, Singer uses examples from a number of settings in which we humans disregard animals interest in not suffering. He brought factory farms or concentrated animal feeding operations into the spotlight, and many people learned for the first time about the suffering that animals experience as they race for meat, eggs, and dairy products. He also describes the suffering animals endure in laboratories. But as I said, Singer does not advocate for animal rights. He doesn't object to the use of animals, but to how we use them. In Singer's perspective, we can still eat meat as long as those animals are treated well and slaughtered humanely, so that we don't prolong their suffering in any way in our efforts to use them. Singer's book had tremendous influence. But within a few years, another philosopher, Tom Regan began making a very different argument. One specifically about animal rights. In the case for animal rights, Regan argued that animals, and here he specified normal mammals aged one year or more, are moral agents with equal inherent value. They are subjects of a life to use Regan's term. This involves more than Singer's interest in avoiding suffering. Subjects of a life have emotions, memories, desires, and preferences. They can initiate action in pursuit of their desires and preferences and they have their own identities and experiences. For Regan, this gives animals inherent value. All subjects of a life have the right not to be treated as a means to end such as satisfying our appetites or serving as research subjects. They have rights to life, liberty, or freedom, and bodily integrity. Recognizing these rights requires ending, not just regulating or improving all institutionalized uses of animals. Regan said, you can't change unjust institutions just by tidying them up. As he wrote in his 2004 book; Empty Cages, being kind to animals is not enough. Avoiding cruelty is not enough. Housing animals in more comfortable larger cages is not enough. Whether we exploit animals to eat, to wear, to entertain us or to learn the truth of animal rights requires empty cages not larger cages. To recap, Singer and Regan represent the philosophical foundation of the animal rights movement. Singer was the first to bring the treatment of animals and their moral standing to widespread attention. But he didn't claim that animals have rights. Regan did make this claim, in his view that animals are subjects of a life would require abolishing most uses of animals. For example, if you're a fully committed animal rights advocate, you cannot justify eating meat, fish, dairy, or eggs. You'll oppose sport hunting, sport fishing, rodeos, circuses, and other uses of animals for recreation. You'll avoid cosmetics or personal care products that were tested on animals or contain animal ingredients. So far, this probably seems pretty reasonable. However, you would also have to confront the idea of having pets for several reasons. For one, a pet is an animal who has no freedom and who exists as a means to an end, which is our desire for companionship. For another, feeding many pets requires killing other animals. This means that those other animals exist as a resource rather than having inherent value. I don't want to leave you with the impression that Singer and Regan are the only voices on this issue. That certainly isn't the case. Many others have written an animal liberation and animal rights for many other positions. However, these others are engaged with Singer or Regan to some extent, so it's important to have their view as a foundation for your knowledge base.
