Review of Alasdair Cochrane, Animal Rights without Liberation

Between the Species: An Online Journal for the Study of Philosophy and Animals, 2003

Singer rejects the notion that ethics is "an ideal system which is all very noble in theory but no good in practice." [2] Singer identifies deontological approaches to ethics, such as rights theories, as impractical and as having to "rescue" themselves from their inapplicability to moral issues in the real world through the introduction of "complexities" such as formulating very detailed rules or establishing ranking structures for rules. He argues that utilitarianism does not start with rules but with goals, and thus has greater normative specificity because actions are prescribed or proscribed based on "the extent to which they further these goals." [3] Utilitarianism, Singer argues, is "untouched by the complexities" required to make deontological moral theories-including rights theory-applicable in concrete moral situations.[4] According to Singer, "[t]he classical utilitarian regards an action as right if it produces as much or more of an increase in the happiness of all affected by it than any alternative action, and wrong if it does not." [5] Singer's views about the nature of rights theory have had a profound impact on the animal rights movement. In the past five or so years, an increasing number of animal advocates have eschewed rights theory for precisely the reason that rights theory is supposedly incapable of providing determinate normative guidance. The concern articulated by these animal advocates is that rights theory demands the immediate abolition of animal exploitation, and that immediate abolition is simply unrealistic. Instead, these animal advocates support the pursuit of incremental animal welfare reform as a "realistic" means of reducing suffering and eventually achieving abolition. The animal welfare approach requires that we treat animals in a more "humane" way, and that we prohibit "unnecessary" suffering. For example, Ingrid Newkirk of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) ostensibly endorses a rights position and ultimately seeks the abolition of animal exploitation, but she argues that "total victory, like checkmate, cannot be achieved in one move" and that we must endorse the moral

The Ethics of Animal Research: Exploring the Controversy, 2012

In the long history of moral theory, non-human animals—hereafter, just animals—have often been neglected entirely or have been relegated to some secondary status. Since its emergence in the early 19th century, utilitarianism has made a difference in that respect by focusing upon happiness or well-being (and their contraries) rather than upon the beings who suffer or enjoy. Inevitably, that has meant that human relations to and use of other animals have appeared in a different light. Some cases have seemed easy: once admit that the interests of animals matter and there can be little hesitation in condemning their cruel treatment. Among the more difficult cases has been the bearing of utilitarianism upon the use of animals in various kinds of research where, though the animals might suffer, there were believed to be prospects of great human benefit and where no cruel or malicious motives need be involved. What I shall provide in the current paper is an extended discussion of the bearing of utilitarianism upon practices of animal research. Since such practices have attracted both utilitarian criticism and defense, this will require the examination of arguments on both sides, including consideration of the human benefits, the animal costs, and the ways in which the one can be weighed against the other.

Animal Sentience

In response to the seventeen commentaries to date on my target article on reducing animal suffering, I propose that the term "welfarism" (when used pejoratively by animal advocates) should be qualified as "anthropocentric welfarism" so as to leave "welfarism" simpliciter to be used in its generic sense of efforts to improve conditions for those who need it. Welfarism in this benign sense-even in its specific utilitarian form (maximizing the sum total of net welfare) with long-term future effects and effects on others (including animals) appropriately taken into account-should be unobjectionable (even if not considered sufficient by all advocates). Rights, both animal and human, should be similarly grounded in the promotion of welfare. My strategic proposal to concentrate on reducing the suffering of farm animals now has been criticized as putting human interests above those of animals and as ignoring the suffering of animals in the wild. These criticisms misunderstand my position and fail to distinguish between the short and long run or between strategy and ideal morality. My position is consistent with perfect impartiality between animals and humans at the level of ideal morality. I also respond to the extreme asymmetrical focus on reducing suffering, ignoring the moral importance of pleasure (the argument against trading off "my orgasms against others' agony"). Even mild measures for reducing animal suffering such as enlarging cage size for factory chickens and prohibiting the cutting of live eels have to be based on some interpersonal and interspecies comparisons of welfare. We must not use the philosophical uncertainty about the comparability or the very existence of animal sentience to diminish our efforts to protect animal welfare.

2012

Between the Species: An Online Journal for the Study of Philosophy and Animals

2014

How far is too far? The current sphere of animal ethics consists of two main theories; utilitarianism, as advocated by Peter Singer, and the animal rights (or deontological) view, as put forth by Tom Regan. I believe that both these views have their shortcomings because they lack the tools to make them context specific and thus seem very extreme and unreasonable. In this paper, I reject the bases of both Singer and Regan’s view and show that it is impossible to maintain moral consistency when strictly following either of them. I then argue for a middle ground between the two views with practical elements from Singer and Regan, which could provide us with a normative theory on what action to take with regards to issues such as consumption of meat and animal testing.

The Connection Between Animal Rights and Animal Liberation: A Reconsideration of the Relation Between Non-human Animal Autonomy and Animal Rights, 2014