by Tom Regan
Published: Tuesday, April 3, 2001
RALEIGH -- In 1975 the philosopher Peter Singer
published "Animal Liberation." The book was (and continues to be)
heralded by many as the "bible of the animal rights movement." This is
both untrue and unfortunate. It is untrue because Singer denies that
animals have rights. It is unfortunate because it creates the impression
that when Singer speaks, he speaks for everyone who believes in animal
rights. He does not. The animal rights movement is abolitionist in its
aspirations. It seeks to end human tyranny
over other animals, not make our tyranny more "humane." It calls for an
end to the fur trade, an end to live animal acts, an end to sport
hunting, an end to vivisection and an end to commercial animal
agriculture. As I have written elsewhere, its goals are empty cages, not
larger cages. People who do not believe in animal rights do not think
the world should change in these ways. Sometimes they call animal
rightists "extremists," "fanatics," "zealots" and worse. But everyone
knows that name-calling
never settles anything; it is the cogency of ideas that must be
addressed. At the heart of the animal rights movement is the belief in
fundamental moral rights. What matters most is whether humans and other
animals are treated with respect, not what good consequences flow from
failing to do so.
"The end does not justify the means" is a moral truth
that applies beyond the boundaries of our species. Mistaken or not, this
is what those committed to animal rights believe. All this Peter Singer
denies. Neither humans nor animals have rights, in his view. As a
utilitarian, he believes that right and wrong depend on how much
satisfaction results from our actions, an outlook that leads him to
accept many practices that advocates of animal rights reject. For
example, given his utilitarianism, there is nothing wrong in principle
if animals are raised to be eaten. If farm animals live a good life, are
killed "humanely," and are replaced by new animals who will be treated
in the same way, satisfaction is optimized, so no wrong is done. No
animal rights advocate believes this. Some people think the difference
between animal rights and Singer's ideas is just a matter of words. This
is not true. Singer's ideas sanction behaviors that both those who
believe in animal rights and those who do not must find appalling. Any
doubts about this vanish when one reads Singer's recent review of a book
by Midas Dekkers called "Dearest Pet." The review appeared last month in
the online sex magazine Nerve.com, whose mission statement celebrates
the belief in "sexual freedom." In his review, Singer explains why, to
his way of thinking, having sex with animals need not be a bad thing.
Granted, sex involving cruelty to animals is wrong. But,
Singer notes, "sex with animals does not always involve cruelty." In
fact, when done "in private," "mutually satisfying [sexual] activities"
involving animals and humans "may develop." In these cases, consistent
with his utilitarian philosophy, when satisfaction is optimized, Singer
can find no wrong. No serious advocate of animal rights believes this.
And none believes this because none uses Singer's utilitarian standard
as their moral standard. As already noted, for animal rights advocates,
more than consequences matter.
Consider sex with infants. Animal rightists do not say
that, when done "in private," there is nothing wrong with "mutually
satisfying [sexual] activities" involving adults and infants. Rather, we
say there is something wrong in engaging in such activities in the first
place. A baby cannot give informed consent. A baby cannot say "yes." Or
"no." In the nature of the case, engaging in sexual activities with
infants must be coercive, must display a lack of respect, thus must be
wrong. Bestiality is no different. Animal
rightists do not say that, when done "in private," there is nothing
wrong with "mutually satisfying [sexual] activities" involving humans
and animals. Rather, we say there is something wrong in engaging in such
activities in the first place. An animal cannot give informed consent.
An animal cannot say "yes." Or "no. In the nature of the case, engaging
in sexual activities with animals must be coercive, must display a lack
of respect, thus must be wrong. Animal rights advocates are not here
paying irrational homage to
outdated sexual taboos or parading their sexual prudishness. Engaging in
"mutually satisfying activities" is one of life's finest pleasures. By
all means, then, the more such activities, the better ... provided that
those who participate are able to give or withhold their informed
consent. The end of mutual satisfaction never justifies the means of
sexual coercion.
Public condemnation of Singer's views on sex with
animals, ranging from "Dr. Laura" to The New Republic, animal rights
chat groups and newspaper opinion pages already is being voiced. Every
indication is that the chorus of condemnation will continue, as well it
should. Still, one must hope that
truth will not be among the casualties. Belief in animal rights can be
challenged in many ways, but let no one say it must be wrong because it
approves of sex with animals. Manifestly, categorically, it does not.
Tom Regan teaches philosophy at N.C. State University.
His latest book is "Defending Animal Rights."
[Editor's Note: For those who are unfamiliar with Peter
Singer's work that is being commented on in this article, check out the
following website. However, be aware that the content is for adults
only.]
Nerve.com - Heavy Petting by Peter Singer
http://www.nerve.com/Opinions/Singer/heavyPetting/
Go on to What's The
Beef With Meat?
Return to 8 April 2001 Issue
Return to Newsletters
** Fair Use Notice**
This document may contain copyrighted material, use of which has not been
specifically authorized by the copyright owners. I believe that this
not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the
copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law). If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your
own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner.
