Ebook The Case for Animal Rights, by Tom Regan
This is also one of the factors by getting the soft data of this The Case For Animal Rights, By Tom Regan by online. You might not require even more times to spend to see the publication establishment and also look for them. Sometimes, you also don't locate the e-book The Case For Animal Rights, By Tom Regan that you are hunting for. It will certainly throw away the time. Yet below, when you visit this web page, it will be so very easy to obtain as well as download and install guide The Case For Animal Rights, By Tom Regan It will certainly not take often times as we explain previously. You can do it while doing another thing at residence or even in your workplace. So very easy! So, are you question? Simply exercise exactly what we supply here and read The Case For Animal Rights, By Tom Regan just what you enjoy to review!
The Case for Animal Rights, by Tom Regan
Ebook The Case for Animal Rights, by Tom Regan
The Case For Animal Rights, By Tom Regan. Allow's read! We will certainly commonly locate out this sentence all over. When still being a kid, mama utilized to buy us to constantly review, so did the instructor. Some publications The Case For Animal Rights, By Tom Regan are completely checked out in a week as well as we require the responsibility to support reading The Case For Animal Rights, By Tom Regan Just what about now? Do you still like reading? Is reviewing simply for you who have obligation? Absolutely not! We here provide you a brand-new e-book qualified The Case For Animal Rights, By Tom Regan to review.
As one of the book collections to propose, this The Case For Animal Rights, By Tom Regan has some strong factors for you to read. This publication is extremely suitable with exactly what you require now. Besides, you will certainly also like this publication The Case For Animal Rights, By Tom Regan to check out considering that this is one of your referred publications to review. When getting something brand-new based on encounter, enjoyment, and other lesson, you could use this book The Case For Animal Rights, By Tom Regan as the bridge. Beginning to have reading routine can be undergone from different means and also from alternative types of books
In checking out The Case For Animal Rights, By Tom Regan, now you could not additionally do conventionally. In this modern-day period, gizmo and also computer system will aid you a lot. This is the moment for you to open the gadget and stay in this site. It is the best doing. You could see the connect to download this The Case For Animal Rights, By Tom Regan below, cannot you? Simply click the link and also negotiate to download it. You can get to buy the book The Case For Animal Rights, By Tom Regan by on-line and prepared to download. It is quite different with the traditional method by gong to guide establishment around your city.
Nonetheless, reviewing guide The Case For Animal Rights, By Tom Regan in this website will lead you not to bring the printed publication everywhere you go. Simply store the book in MMC or computer disk and they are readily available to check out whenever. The thriving air conditioner by reading this soft data of the The Case For Animal Rights, By Tom Regan can be introduced something brand-new habit. So currently, this is time to verify if reading can enhance your life or otherwise. Make The Case For Animal Rights, By Tom Regan it undoubtedly function and also obtain all benefits.
More than twenty years after its original publication, The Case for Animal Rights is an acknowledged classic of moral philosophy, and its author is recognized as the intellectual leader of the animal rights movement. In a new and fully considered preface, Regan responds to his critics and defends the book's revolutionary position.
- Sales Rank: #357417 in Books
- Published on: 2004-09-17
- Original language: English
- Number of items: 1
- Dimensions: 8.25" h x 1.20" w x 5.50" l, 1.25 pounds
- Binding: Paperback
- 474 pages
Review
""The Case for Animal Rights "is beyond question the most important philosophical contribution to animal rights and is a major work in moral philosophy."--"Animal Law Review"
From the Inside Flap
"Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, Kant, Bentham, Mill: all thought seriously about the role of animals in our lives. But not until Tom Regan published The Case for Animal Rights did the world possess a theory of the rights of animals. When philosophy students come to this issue hundreds of years from now, they will read the greats in light of the arguments presented here."—Gary L. Comstock, editor of Life Science Ethics
"Tom Regan's now classic Case For Animal Rights blends careful argument with intense moral concern. For two decades, where Regan has been taken seriously, animals have been better off and people have become better persons. This new edition is a welcome sign of this influence continuing."—Holmes Rolston, III, University Distinguished Professor, Colorado State University
"A bold and nuanced analysis of the inherent value and moral standing of nonhuman animals. It may also be the most consistent and unyielding defense of animal rights."—Tom L. Beauchamp, Georgetown University
"The most powerful and plausible consideration of the issues and defense of animal rights yet to be produced (or likely to be)."—Richard Wasserstrom
"By far the best work on the subject, and will continue to be the definitive work for years to come . . . .[It is] destined to become a 'modern classic' in the field of ethics, alongside Rawls’s A Theory of Justice and Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia."—Alastair S. Gunn, coauthor of Hold Paramount
Praise for the first edition:
"Unquestionably the best work yet to appear in its field, surpassing even Peter Singer's famous Animal Liberation in originality, thoroughness, and rigor."—Choice
"The Case for Animal Rights is beyond question the most important philosophical contribution to animal rights and is a major work in moral philosophy."—Animal Law Review
"The most powerful and plausible consideration of the issues and defense of animal rights yet to be produced (or likely to be)."—Richard Wasserstrom, author of Philosophy and Social Issues (1980)
From the Back Cover
"Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, Kant, Bentham, Mill: all thought seriously about the role of animals in our lives. But not until Tom Regan published "The Case for Animal Rights did the world possess a theory of the rights of animals. When philosophy students come to this issue hundreds of years from now, they will read the greats in light of the arguments presented here."--Gary L. Comstock, editor of "Life Science Ethics
"Tom Regan's now classic "Case For Animal Rights blends careful argument with intense moral concern. For two decades, where Regan has been taken seriously, animals have been better off and people have become better persons. This new edition is a welcome sign of this influence continuing."--Holmes Rolston, III, University Distinguished Professor, Colorado State University
"A bold and nuanced analysis of the inherent value and moral standing of nonhuman animals. It may also be the most consistent and unyielding defense of animal rights."--Tom L. Beauchamp, Georgetown University
"The most powerful and plausible consideration of the issues and defense of animal rights yet to be produced (or likely to be)."--Richard Wasserstrom
"By far the best work on the subject, and will continue to be the definitive work for years to come . . . .[It is] destined to become a 'modern classic' in the field of ethics, alongside Rawls's "A Theory of Justice and Nozick's "Anarchy, State, and Utopia."--Alastair S. Gunn, coauthor of "Hold Paramount
Most helpful customer reviews
52 of 60 people found the following review helpful.
Beats the heck out of Peter Singer
By John S. Ryan
As I suggested long ago in my review of Peter Singer's _Animal Liberation_, while I applaud Singer for pointing out numerous ways in which our treatment of animals could be improved, I don't find his "utilitarian" ethical arguments very persuasive.
But Tom Regan's now-classic book -- this one -- is a different story. This is a tour-de-force of ethical argumentation that makes the titular case about as well as it's ever going to be made. Regan doesn't simplify any issues and he's very much alive to fine ethical nuances. And he sets out his case with both rigor and vigor.
Probably most of us won't have any problem agreeing that at least some nonhuman animals are conscious, but there _have_ been people who have denied it (most famously, Rene Descartes). So for completeness, Regan begins with a careful discussion of the question. Avoiding simplistic answers and over-eager claims about research on e.g. animal language, he mounts a solid case that at least some nonhumans do possess consciousness.
(Some of his arguments are a bit weaker than he thinks they are, although I still agree with his conclusions. For example, he argues that possession of language skills can't be an indicator of consciousness because human infants are presumably conscious before they acquire a language; how else, indeed, would they acquire it? But this shows only that _present_ possession of linguistic ability isn't a necessary condition of consciousness; it doesn't show that the ability to _learn_ a language isn't such a condition. As I said, though, I agree with his conclusion; I'm merely criticizing the way he gets to it.)
The remainder of the book is a wide-ranging discussion, not just of animal rights, but of ethics generally. Even aside from Regan's nominal topic, the volume could serve as a fine introduction to ethical thought in general. (Among its many highlights: a short refutation of Jan Narveson's "rational egoism" that could double as a refutation of Ayn Rand's even sillier version.)
In the end, what this gets us is a careful case for regarding mammalian animals which are at least a year old as possessors of "rights." (Regan also argues that for other reasons, we could and should want to extend "rights" to other animals; he has limited his discussion to mammals in order to keep to what he takes to be a fairly clear-cut case.) These "rights" do not, he holds, trump every other ethical consideration under the sun; in particular, in emergency situations in which either (say) a human being or a dog (or a million dogs) must be killed, we should kill the dog (or dogs) every time. These "rights" are _prima facie_ moral claims -- strong, but not indefeasible.
What I think Regan has successfully shown is that living beings don't have to be moral _agents_ in order to count in our moral deliberations. And with most of what he says on this subject, I heartily agree; in particular I think he has made just the right distinction between moral agents and moral patients, and correctly argued that moral patients have _some_ sort of "right" to consideration.
I cannot, however, follow him _quite_ all the way to his conclusions -- for example, that we are morally obliged to be vegetarian and to refrain from using animals in all scientific research. Mind you, I've been a vegetarian myself and I think there _are_ good reasons for avoiding meat; I just don't think they're morally conclusive. I agree completely that many current practices are inhumane, and I also agree with a point Regan argues repeatedly: that moral limitations on what we can do with animals do _not_, as such, interfere with the operation of the free market. But I'm still not altogether sold.
(The problem -- to put it briefly and inadequately -- is that I think Regan assigns too much to moral _patients_ in the way of "rights." I'm not persuaded that in order to have a "right," it's enough that someone else could make a moral claim on your behalf. In other words, I disagree with Regan's contention that moral agents and moral patients are entitled to exactly the _same_ sorts of moral consideration.)
I don't, however, mind admitting that Regan has changed my mind on some points and may yet change my mind on others. If I ever _do_ change my mind on this last point, he will be in part responsible.
And at any rate I highly recommend this volume to any readers interested in the topic of animal rights. Moral reasoning doesn't get any better than this.
5 of 5 people found the following review helpful.
Excellent work of moral philosophy
By dcleve
Other reviewers all seem to be Animal Rights advocates, interested in a sound justification for their preconceptions. I read this work for a different reason -- because I was interested in a non-theistic AND non-utilitarian justification for ethics. Tom Regan does an excellent job as a moral philosopher presenting an alternative way to look at ethics, and I stongly recommend this book for that reason.
As for justifying animal welfare, I found it less convincing. Regan's reason for rejecting Singer's argument for utilitarianism is because utilitarianism could sometimes justify sacrificing an animal, and he wants a moral guideline that will not allow that. Well, this is certainly assuming your conclusion, and made me wonder how much of the work was honest reasoning, and how much was a political spin document.
But the ultimate problem for me in accepting the arguments was in two areas. First, the absolutist nature of rights (either you have them, or you don't and they are non-negotiable) flies in the face of what is reasonable in the world. If a fish is not conscious, it has no rights, and if it is, its rights equal mine, even though its consiousness may be so marginal that we are extremely uncertain whether it even exists. Instead, for any consciousness-based rights system to be funcitonal, it must be based on DEGREE of consciousness, so a fish has less rights than a mouse, who has less rights than a mature human. (If mice have as many rights as humans, then almost all human activity is unacceptable -- plowing/tilling kills small rodents, as does driving, as does ANY construction work of any kind -- his mine rescue example neglects that all his options, including digging the mine in the first place, disturbs the soil fatally for some small rodents.) But Regan will not accept this, partially because any such scheme would be extremely difficult to work out, but primarily because it would allow the use/abuse of animals in some cases -- a consequence he will not accept (per his rejection of Singer) even if the reasoning for it is valid.
The second objection is that this scheme takes no account of the welfare of future beings. Extinction to him is a concern of corporatist ethics, when all that matters according to him are the individuals CURRENTLY involved. But an ethics which cannot provide a rationale to prevent future ecosystem destruction, or to prevent mass extinctions say by a comet impact 100 years in the future of individuals who are not alive today and therefore do not compute for rights calculations is deeply flawed in providing moral guidance.
These weaknesses are correctable, and this work could be improved to become a fairly compelling and general moral guideline. But to do so will result in drastically weakening the justification for animal welfare in his work, so I expect they will not be adressed, and this work will remain an interesting, but ulimately unconvincing excercise, serving solely to rally the faithful.
16 of 18 people found the following review helpful.
A Book That Will Challenge The Way You Make Moral Decisions
By Hunter Morgan
Of all the books I read in college, this one has nagged me the most. It offers a completely logical case for giving animals their own "right to life." Most of the book is an education in ethics philosophy - necessary background if one is to reflect on one's own moral decision-making when it comes to other living beings.
A Christian who believes that humans deserve higher moral consideration precisely because they are humans will not find the book particularly swaying. If one is to cite gospel for making moral decisions, Regan basically asks, "So ... WHICH gospel/scripture?" as there are many faiths that purport to receive the truth from a god or gods. Most Christians have a ready answer to that question - but one backed up by faith, not logic. Regan aims to show that our secular beliefs about human rights to life logically do not exclude - but rather, should include - other animals.
One woman in our class rejected Regan's thesis and conclusion when she learned that accepting his arguments logically necessitated a pro-life, anti-abortion stance. For that reason, a pro-life Christian might give Regan's book a closer, more sympathetic look.
Where Regan's case breaks down is in where to draw the line. Do we make it illegal to fish? To step on ants? To deal with this problem he creates a construct called "Subject of a Life" and establishes several criteria to decide which animals can be food and which ones can't. But it is hard not to see arbitrariness of whatever criteria we establish. In a sense, we are right back to where we started: refering to our personal biases as moral benchmarks.
Why do YOU exclude animals from deserving a right to live, to be eaten, skinned, etc? Is it because they aren't as smart as humans or don't have sophisticated language? Is it because the scripture you believe to be true says it's okay to kill them for your purposes? Is it because you can ... and just don't feel that guilty? Is it a morality of expedience that we choose to follow when we kill an animal that feels pain and enjoys its life?
Read this book and the questions will nag you, too.
The Case for Animal Rights, by Tom Regan PDF
The Case for Animal Rights, by Tom Regan EPub
The Case for Animal Rights, by Tom Regan Doc
The Case for Animal Rights, by Tom Regan iBooks
The Case for Animal Rights, by Tom Regan rtf
The Case for Animal Rights, by Tom Regan Mobipocket
The Case for Animal Rights, by Tom Regan Kindle
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar