APA Citation
Regan, T. (1983). The Case for Animal Rights. University of California Press.
Intellectual & Historical Context
Tom Regan’s The Case for Animal Rights was published in 1983, marking a pivotal moment in the development of animal ethics as a distinct and rigorous philosophical discipline. The work emerged within the broader context of moral philosophy’s increasing engagement with questions of justice beyond human communities, particularly in response to utilitarian perspectives like those of Peter Singer (Animal Liberation, 1975). Regan’s book sought to construct a deontological framework for animal rights, rooted in Kantian ethics, while critiquing the prevailing ethical paradigms that failed to recognize the moral standing of non-human animals.
At the time of its publication, debates surrounding animal rights were intensifying due to growing activism against factory farming, animal experimentation, and environmental destruction. The rise of animal rights organizations such as PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and legal challenges to animal cruelty statutes further underscored the book’s relevance. Regan’s philosophical project was an attempt to provide the movement with a robust theoretical foundation, distinct from utilitarianism, which often justified harm to individual animals if it resulted in greater overall happiness.
Regan’s work was also shaped by broader intellectual trends, including the revival of rights-based moral theories in political philosophy (as seen in John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice, 1971). His defense of animal rights drew heavily on notions of justice, moral patienthood, and inherent value, challenging both traditional ethical views and contemporary reformist perspectives.
Thesis Statement
Regan argues that non-human animals possess inherent value and moral rights, making their exploitation—whether through farming, experimentation, or entertainment—ethically indefensible. Unlike utilitarian frameworks that assess morality based on the maximization of happiness, Regan’s “rights view” asserts that animals, as “subjects-of-a-life,” have moral standing independent of human interests. Therefore, they must be accorded the same respect as human beings in moral deliberations.
Regan’s thesis is revolutionary in that it does not merely call for the reduction of suffering (as utilitarianism does) but demands the complete abolition of institutions that systematically exploit animals. He posits that just as we reject human slavery due to its inherent moral wrongness, we must reject the use of animals as means to human ends.
Key Concepts
- The Subject-of-a-Life Criterion
Regan introduces the concept that certain animals—those with beliefs, desires, perceptions, memory, and a sense of the future—are “subjects-of-a-life.” This means they have a welfare that matters to them independently of their utility to others. These animals, therefore, possess inherent value and moral rights. - Inherent Value vs. Utilitarian Calculations
Unlike utilitarianism, which assesses moral worth based on the ability to experience pleasure and pain, Regan argues that animals have inherent value. Their moral worth does not fluctuate based on their ability to contribute to the happiness of the majority. - The Rights View
Regan’s rights-based ethical theory extends Kantian moral principles to non-human animals. While Kant excluded animals from the moral community because they lack rationality, Regan argues that rationality is not the sole criterion for moral consideration—what matters is being a subject-of-a-life. - Critique of Contractarianism
Regan challenges social contract theories (such as Rawlsian contractarianism) that exclude animals from the moral community on the basis that they cannot enter into reciprocal agreements. He argues that morality should not be confined to those capable of mutual consent, as this would also exclude human infants and cognitively impaired individuals. - Abolitionism vs. Reformism
Regan sharply distinguishes between abolitionist and reformist approaches to animal ethics. While some advocate for reducing harm within existing exploitative systems (e.g., improving conditions in factory farms), Regan insists that such systems must be dismantled entirely, as they fundamentally violate animals’ rights. - Criticism of Indirect Duty Views
Traditional ethical views, such as those found in Kantian ethics, often assert that humans only have indirect duties to animals—i.e., duties that arise because mistreating animals might lead to cruelty towards humans. Regan dismantles this argument, insisting that animals deserve moral consideration in their own right. - Justice and Equality
Regan extends the principle of justice to animals, arguing that moral consistency demands that we extend rights to all beings who meet the subject-of-a-life criterion. Discriminating against animals based on species (speciesism) is as arbitrary as racism or sexism. - Implications for Human-Animal Relationships
The book’s final chapters explore the practical implications of the rights view, including the necessity of vegetarianism, the ethical rejection of animal experimentation, and the prohibition of hunting and trapping.
Chapter Summaries
Chapter 1: Animal Awareness
Regan begins by dismantling the Cartesian view that animals are mere automata, incapable of thought or consciousness. He reviews historical perspectives, particularly Descartes’ claim that animals are mindless machines, and argues that modern science and evolutionary theory strongly suggest otherwise. Regan critiques anthropocentric biases and asserts that animals, especially mammals, demonstrate awareness and intentionality. He introduces the subject-of-a-life criterion as a foundational concept for determining moral consideration.
Chapter 2: The Complexity of Animal Awareness
This chapter builds upon the first by exploring the depth of animal consciousness. Regan examines the belief-desire theory, which posits that an entity must be able to hold beliefs and desires in order to be considered morally significant. He assesses empirical evidence from cognitive ethology, demonstrating that many non-human animals exhibit behaviors indicative of beliefs and desires. He also critiques skepticism about animal minds, arguing that it is unjustified to assume human exceptionalism in this regard.
Chapter 3: Animal Welfare
Here, Regan distinguishes between the welfare-based approach (which seeks to minimize suffering while still permitting animal use) and the rights-based approach (which demands abolition of animal exploitation). He critiques utilitarian perspectives, particularly those of Peter Singer, for failing to respect the inherent worth of individual animals. Regan also discusses issues such as euthanasia, paternalism, and the ethical status of killing animals.
Chapter 4: Ethical Thinking and Theory
Regan outlines the criteria for evaluating moral theories, arguing that ethical reasoning must be based on principles of justice, consistency, and respect for individuals. He explores both consequentialist and non-consequentialist approaches, ultimately rejecting utilitarianism for its failure to recognize the inviolability of individual rights. Instead, he aligns his theory with deontological ethics, emphasizing duties and moral constraints.
Chapter 5: Indirect Duty Views
Regan critiques philosophical views that deny direct moral duties to animals. He examines contractarianism (Rawls, Narveson), rational egoism, and Kantian ethics, all of which argue that moral consideration for animals arises only insofar as it affects human interests. He systematically dismantles these positions, demonstrating that they rely on arbitrary distinctions that unjustly exclude animals.
Chapter 6: Direct Duty Views
Regan explores ethical theories that afford animals some degree of direct moral consideration, including kindness-cruelty ethics, hedonistic utilitarianism, and preference utilitarianism (as championed by Singer). He argues that these views, while an improvement over indirect duty theories, still fail to respect animals as subjects-of-a-life. He critiques the speciesism embedded in utilitarianism, arguing that it permits unjustifiable harm to individuals in the name of aggregate welfare.
Chapter 7: Justice and Equality
In this crucial chapter, Regan formally introduces the rights view as an alternative to both indirect duty and utilitarian perspectives. He argues that animals, like humans, possess inherent value, which entitles them to equal moral consideration. He discusses different theories of justice, explaining why utilitarian and perfectionist approaches fail to provide a coherent basis for animal rights. Regan’s subject-of-a-life criterion is central to his argument, as it provides a morally relevant basis for attributing rights.
Chapter 8: The Rights View
This chapter is the philosophical core of the book. Regan systematically constructs a rights-based moral theory that extends to both human and non-human animals. He discusses the nature of moral and legal rights, emphasizing that rights are not contingent on intelligence, rationality, or reciprocity. He defends the Respect Principle, which demands that all individuals with inherent value be treated with respect, and the Harm Principle, which prohibits unjustified harm even when it benefits others.
Regan also considers objections to the rights view, including arguments about overriding rights in cases of conflict, the question of whether numbers should count in moral dilemmas, and the problem of moral patients (individuals who cannot reciprocate moral obligations, such as infants or severely disabled persons). He defends his position against criticisms, maintaining that animals deserve the same moral protections as human beings who lack higher cognitive faculties.
Chapter 9: Implications of the Rights View
Regan applies his ethical framework to real-world practices, arguing for the abolition of animal agriculture, animal experimentation, hunting, and trapping. He contends that vegetarianism is a moral obligation, as consuming animal products inherently violates the rights of animals. He also critiques conservationist arguments that prioritize species over individual animals, explaining why endangered species protection must be compatible with individual rights.
Regan forcefully rejects the view that some harm to animals is permissible if it serves human interests, comparing such reasoning to historical justifications for human slavery and oppression. He insists that any system that treats animals as resources is fundamentally unjust and must be dismantled.
Epilogue
In the epilogue, Regan reflects on the broader implications of the rights view, urging a shift in societal attitudes towards animals. He acknowledges that his position is radical but argues that justice demands nothing less. He also calls for continued philosophical and legal efforts to enshrine animal rights into law, emphasizing the need for both intellectual rigor and activism.
Key Quotes and Their Significance
1. The Foundation of the Rights View
“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. Once we accept this view of animals—as our resources—the rest is as predictable as it is regrettable.”
Significance
This quote encapsulates Regan’s core argument: the ethical problem is not just cruelty or suffering, but the very systematic use of animals as commodities. Unlike utilitarians who argue for reducing suffering while maintaining human dominion over animals, Regan insists that animals should not be seen as resources at all. This abolitionist stance is what sets Regan apart from reformist thinkers.
2. The Inherent Value of Animals
“We do not claim the right to treat humans in ways that violate their inherent value; neither should we do so to animals who, like humans, are subjects-of-a-life.”
Significance
Here, Regan introduces inherent value as a moral status that is not contingent on rationality, intelligence, or social contract participation. His subject-of-a-life criterion extends Kantian moral respect beyond humans, arguing that animals have a welfare that matters to them independently of human interests. This undermines speciesism, likening it to other forms of discrimination such as racism and sexism.
3. Critique of Utilitarianism
“Utilitarianism has no room for the equal moral worth of individuals, because it is willing to sacrifice some for the greater good. The rights view does not allow this.”
Significance
Regan critiques consequentialist ethics, particularly Peter Singer’s utilitarianism. While Singer’s argument in Animal Liberation focuses on reducing suffering, Regan points out that utilitarianism permits sacrificing individuals for aggregate happiness, which is inconsistent with justice. His deontological approach prioritizes respecting each being’s rights over achieving the best overall outcome.
4. The Morality of Killing Animals
“Killing an animal for food is not morally different from killing a human for food. The issue is not intelligence, reason, or usefulness, but the fact that both are individuals with lives that matter to them.”
Significance
This radical comparison highlights Regan’s rejection of human exceptionalism. He argues that using animals for food is fundamentally unjust, not because they suffer (as utilitarians argue) but because their right to life is violated. This forms the basis of his stance on vegetarianism as a moral obligation.
5. The Limits of Animal Welfare Reform
“The question is not whether we should reform factory farms to be less cruel, but whether we should have them at all.”
Significance
Regan directly critiques welfare-based approaches, which aim to improve conditions for farmed animals rather than abolishing their exploitation. He argues that reforming unjust systems does not make them just—a stance reminiscent of abolitionist arguments against slavery.
Significance and Impact of the Work
1. A Landmark in Animal Rights Philosophy
The Case for Animal Rights is widely considered one of the most important works in animal ethics, providing the first rigorous deontological defense of animal rights. Before Regan, most discussions on animal ethics were utilitarian (Singer) or based on indirect duty theories (Kant, contractarianism). Regan’s work shifted the debate by establishing that animals have moral rights intrinsically, not merely because of their utility or sentience.
2. Influence on Law and Policy
Regan’s work has influenced legal discussions about animal personhood, particularly in debates surrounding:
- Banning animal testing (his arguments were cited in discussions of alternatives to animal experimentation).
- Rights of great apes (efforts to grant legal personhood to chimpanzees and orangutans are influenced by his subject-of-a-life criterion).
- Vegetarian and vegan advocacy (his book remains a foundational text in vegan ethics).
His insistence on abolition rather than reform has shaped groups like Direct Action Everywhere (DxE) and The Nonhuman Rights Project.
3. Criticism and Counterarguments
Despite its influence, Regan’s theory has been critiqued for several reasons:
- Arbitrary cut-off: Critics argue that his subject-of-a-life criterion excludes many animals (e.g., insects, mollusks) despite them being sentient.
- Rigid deontology: Some argue that absolute rights make moral dilemmas (e.g., sacrificing one to save many) difficult to resolve.
- Feasibility concerns: Critics claim that his abolitionist approach is impractical, advocating for incremental change instead.
Despite these critiques, The Case for Animal Rights remains a cornerstone of animal rights philosophy, setting the standard for moral reasoning on the issue.