APA Citation
Regan, T. (2006). Defending Animal Rights. University of Illinois Press.
Intellectual & Historical Context
Defending Animal Rights (2006) is a collection of essays by Tom Regan that expands on his landmark work, The Case for Animal Rights (1983). The book responds to criticisms of his rights-based approach to animal ethics, reflecting Regan’s intellectual evolution over a decade. Unlike The Case for Animal Rights, which systematically constructs a deontological argument for animal rights, Defending Animal Rights engages directly with opponents, reformists, and defenders of the status quo.
By the early 2000s, the animal rights movement had gained significant traction, influencing legislation (such as bans on cosmetic animal testing) and shifting public discourse. However, mainstream ethics still largely favored utilitarian perspectives (like Peter Singer’s) or incremental welfare reforms rather than Regan’s abolitionist stance. This book critiques speciesist ideologies, explores parallels with human rights struggles, and defends the necessity of radical change in how society treats nonhuman animals.
Thesis Statement
Regan argues that animal rights are not just an extension of human kindness or utilitarian calculations but a moral imperative based on justice. He defends the abolitionist position, stating that animals, as subjects-of-a-life, possess inherent value and cannot be ethically used for human purposes. He also critiques compromise positions, arguing that incremental reforms (e.g., “humane farming”) fail to address the fundamental injustice of animal exploitation.
Key Concepts
- The Rights-Based Approach
- Unlike utilitarianism (which aims to minimize suffering), Regan’s deontology asserts that animals have intrinsic worth and moral rights.
- Animals are not mere resources; their rights must be respected, not balanced against human interests.
- Abolitionism vs. Reformism
- Reformists (like Singer) advocate for reducing suffering while keeping animal industries intact.
- Regan argues for total abolition—just as we do not seek “humane slavery,” we should not seek “humane animal exploitation.”
- The Subject-of-a-Life Criterion
- Animals with beliefs, desires, memories, emotions, and a sense of future welfare qualify as moral subjects.
- Their interests should not be overridden by human convenience or economic benefit.
- Critique of Utilitarianism
- Utilitarianism permits sacrificing individuals for greater good, which Regan rejects as ethically indefensible.
- Justice requires respect for individual rights, not just minimizing suffering.
- The Hypocrisy of Moral Progress
- Historical parallels: Just as past societies justified slavery and oppression, modern society justifies animal exploitation.
- Moral progress requires rejecting the idea that some lives matter less than others.
- Violence in the Animal Rights Movement
- Regan examines whether radical activism, including violence, is justified.
- He argues that while moral outrage is warranted, violent tactics are counterproductive.
- Challenges for Academics and Advocates
- Regan discusses the ethical dilemmas faced by scholars and activists, particularly when working within institutions that exploit animals.
- He explores the moral responsibility of professionals in upholding ethical integrity.
Chapter Summaries
Chapter 1: Ethical Theory and Animals
Regan opens the book by situating animal ethics within the broader landscape of normative ethical theory. He critiques traditional anthropocentric moral systems, arguing that most ethical frameworks have systematically excluded animals from serious moral consideration.
- Direct vs. Indirect Duties:
- Indirect duty theories (e.g., Kantian ethics) hold that humans have duties regarding animals only because harming them could lead to harm against humans.
- Direct duty theories (like Regan’s) argue that animals deserve moral respect in their own right.
- Abolition vs. Reform vs. Status Quo:
- Abolitionist Position (Regan’s view): Calls for ending all animal exploitation, just as past moral struggles (e.g., abolition of slavery) required radical change, not reform.
- Reformist Position (e.g., Singer’s view): Accepts improving conditions for animals but permits their continued use.
- Status Quo Defenders: Claim that human interests always outweigh animal interests.
Regan systematically rejects the status quo and reformist approaches, arguing that justice demands the complete abolition of institutions that exploit animals.
Chapter 2: Animal Liberation: What’s in a Name?
Regan critiques the terminology and framing used in the animal rights debate. He argues that:
- The term “animal liberation” (popularized by Peter Singer) can be misleading because it suggests that animals need only to be freed from suffering.
- The phrase “animal rights” better captures the ethical necessity of recognizing animals as moral subjects, not merely as beings whose suffering should be minimized.
- Many organizations claim to support animal rights but actually advocate welfare reforms, perpetuating public confusion about what justice for animals truly entails.
Chapter 3: The Case for Animal Rights: A Decade’s Passing
Reflecting on the impact of his 1983 book, The Case for Animal Rights, Regan addresses criticisms and clarifies his moral framework:
- Subject-of-a-Life Criterion
- Moral consideration should be extended to beings who are aware of themselves over time and have an interest in their own future.
- Animals who meet this criterion (mammals, birds, etc.) possess inherent value and cannot be used as mere resources.
- Critique of Utilitarianism (Singer’s Approach)
- Regan acknowledges Singer’s important role in advancing animal ethics but rejects utilitarianism for failing to respect individual rights.
- Example: Killing one healthy animal to save five suffering ones is morally unjustifiable, as it treats individuals as mere means to an end.
Regan reaffirms that his approach is not about reducing suffering—it’s about recognizing moral rights.
Chapter 4: Mapping Human Rights
Regan draws parallels between human and animal rights, challenging the arbitrary exclusion of animals from moral consideration. He critiques:
- Contractarianism (e.g., Rawlsian social contract theory), which limits moral rights to those capable of rational agreements.
- Speciesism, comparing it to racism and sexism, arguing that excluding animals from rights protections is as unjust as past human rights violations.
- The historical progression of moral progress, noting that just as women, racial minorities, and the disabled were once denied rights, animals are today.
Regan insists that justice must be extended consistently: if moral worth is based on being a subject-of-a-life, then excluding animals is indefensible.
Chapter 5: Putting People in Their Place
This chapter explores the relationship between human self-interest and moral obligations toward animals. Regan dismantles the argument that:
- Humans are superior because they possess rationality → Refuted: Many humans (infants, cognitively disabled individuals) lack advanced rationality, yet we do not deny them moral rights.
- Moral obligations apply only to human communities → Refuted: Ethics extends beyond immediate social contracts (e.g., we condemn harming future generations despite no direct reciprocity).
- Animal rights would threaten human well-being → Refuted: Regan argues that true ethical progress does not come at the cost of justice but by transforming exploitative systems.
Chapter 6: Patterns of Resistance
Regan examines why animal rights face such strong resistance, drawing historical parallels with other moral revolutions (e.g., abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, civil rights).
- Religious Justifications of Oppression
- Historically, religion has been used to justify human domination, from divine right monarchies to slavery.
- Today, religious arguments are often used to defend human supremacy over animals.
- Scientific Justifications
- Many past scientific “proofs” of racial and gender inferiority were later debunked, yet similar reasoning persists in defenses of speciesism.
- Regan critiques biological determinism, arguing that the moral worth of an individual is not defined by cognitive capacity.
Regan concludes that animal rights will continue to face resistance as all major justice movements have, but history favors moral progress.
Chapter 7: Understanding Animal Rights Violence
Regan addresses the controversial issue of violence in the animal rights movement. He distinguishes:
- Violence against property (e.g., destroying lab equipment used for animal testing).
- Violence against people (e.g., attacking scientists or farmers).
While acknowledging the moral urgency of animal rights, Regan argues that:
- Violence is counterproductive, reinforcing negative stereotypes of activists.
- Nonviolent civil disobedience (akin to Gandhi and MLK Jr.) is the most effective moral strategy.
He urges strategic activism focused on public education and legal change rather than radical aggression.
Chapter 8: Ivory Towers Should Not a Prison Make
Regan reflects on the challenges faced by animal rights scholars within academic institutions that profit from animal exploitation.
- Many philosophy departments marginalize animal ethics, treating it as a fringe issue.
- Academics face career risks when advocating for radical ethical change.
- Universities often reject or suppress discussions on animal rights due to financial ties with industries that exploit animals.
Regan calls for greater academic integrity and boldness in challenging institutional complicity in animal oppression.
Chapter 9: Work, Hypocrisy, and Integrity
The final chapter addresses moral dilemmas faced by individuals working in industries that exploit animals.
- Can scientists, veterinarians, or farmworkers ethically remain in their jobs while opposing animal exploitation?
- Regan urges people to navigate this dilemma with integrity, seeking ways to subvert oppressive systems from within or transitioning to ethical careers.
He closes with a call to action, insisting that meaningful change requires personal and collective courage.
Key Quotes and Their Significance
1. The Moral Core of Animal Rights
“The fundamental wrong is the system that allows us to view animals as our resources, here for us—to be eaten, or surgically manipulated, or exploited for sport or money.”
Significance
Regan’s abolitionist stance is clear: animals are not commodities. Unlike welfare reformers who argue for reducing suffering within existing systems, Regan asserts that any system that treats animals as resources is inherently unjust. He compares this to historical injustices like slavery, which could not be merely “reformed”—it had to be abolished.
2. The Flawed Justifications for Animal Exploitation
“We do not grant moral consideration based on intelligence, power, or usefulness. Why then should we deny it to animals on these grounds?”
Significance
Regan challenges speciesism by exposing the inconsistency in moral reasoning. If moral worth were based on intelligence, we would have to exclude infants, the elderly, and cognitively disabled humans. Since we do not, excluding animals for this reason is arbitrary and unjust.
3. The Subject-of-a-Life Criterion
“To be the subject-of-a-life is to have a welfare that matters to you. Not to anyone else—to you. If this is true for humans, it is true for animals.”
Significance
This is Regan’s key philosophical foundation: animals, like humans, have a personal stake in their own existence. Their welfare is not contingent on human interests. This directly refutes utilitarian arguments that animals’ suffering can be “justified” if it benefits others.
4. Rejecting the “Humane Exploitation” Myth
“We do not seek humane slavery or humane child labor. We seek their abolition. The same must be true for animal exploitation.”
Significance
Regan rejects reformist strategies (e.g., free-range farming, larger cages for lab animals) as morally inadequate. Welfare reforms perpetuate the idea that animals are resources rather than individuals with rights. This stance puts him at odds with utilitarian animal advocates like Peter Singer, who support gradual improvements.
5. The Limits of Utilitarian Ethics
“Utilitarianism allows for sacrificing some for the greater good. That is its flaw. Justice is not about maximizing utility—it is about respecting rights.”
Significance
Regan critiques utilitarianism’s failure to protect individuals, arguing that justice cannot be reduced to a calculation of happiness vs. suffering. His deontological approach asserts that rights cannot be violated, even for a greater social benefit.
Significance and Impact of the Work
1. Strengthening the Philosophical Foundation of Animal Rights
- Regan deepens the moral discourse beyond utilitarianism, providing a deontological defense of animal rights.
- His work influenced academic philosophy, law, and activism, moving the debate toward rights-based frameworks rather than mere welfare improvements.
2. Influence on Legal and Policy Debates
- Regan’s abolitionist perspective shaped discussions about ending—not just reforming—animal industries.
- Inspired legal challenges to animal agriculture, experimentation, and entertainment.
- His arguments have been cited in debates on granting legal personhood to animals, influencing organizations like The Nonhuman Rights Project.
3. Conflict with Reformist and Utilitarian Thinkers
- Peter Singer (utilitarianism): Advocates reducing suffering but permits some animal use if it leads to overall good.
- Regan (deontology): Demands full abolition, rejecting any compromise that legitimizes exploitation.
- Ethical dilemma: Should we accept incremental reforms or demand total abolition? Regan argues that only abolition is consistent with justice.
4. Challenges and Criticisms
Critique: The Subject-of-a-Life Criterion Is Arbitrary
- Critics argue that not all animals qualify as “subjects-of-a-life” (e.g., insects, fish).
- Regan’s framework excludes many sentient beings who may still deserve moral consideration.
Critique: Deontology Is Too Rigid
- Some argue that absolute rights make moral dilemmas difficult (e.g., would saving five humans justify harming one animal?).
- Utilitarians contend that flexibility in ethics is necessary for real-world decisions.
Legacy and Future Directions
- Shift toward legal personhood for animals (Regan’s work is foundational in debates on animal rights law).
- Veganism and abolitionist movements cite Regan as a key intellectual figure.
- Challenges to speciesism are now taken more seriously in philosophy and law.