Scan barcode
A review by wellworn_soles
The Case for Animal Rights by Tom Regan
3.0
This is definitely more of a 3.5 than a flat 3-star. The Case for Animal Rights is undeniably a classic in animal rights literature, and I think Tim Regan’s work is valuable. Ultimately, this book was a little bit of a low score for me for two big reasons:
1) I don’t claim to be a philosopher, but Ive read a good deal of theory, metaphysics, ethics, ontology, etc. Many of the points Regan takes time to take down are extremely valuable for someone not versed in these arguments and their counterarguments. However, for me, a lot here was unnecessary and sometimes got repetitive. Regan acknowledges this in the intro, noting that its impossible to write a book arguing ethics that fits both a layperson with no background and a philosophy professor. I think he does a great job leading readers through potentially tangled discussions of morality and values, but I personally did not need the plodding minutiae laid out. It got to the point where in some chapters I skipped to the summary that Regan places at the end. If I had questions about something referenced or a detail I wanted more insight to, I’d go back. Otherwise, I kinda knew the material being covered.
2) Regan’s conception of subjects-to-a-life feels antiquated now in 2022. His basic thesis specifically argues that mammals have moral rights because they are “subjects of lives,” that is, roughly, conscious, sentient beings with an experiential welfare. This view feels both too much and too little. Regan spends so much time building this edifice of reasoned thought where I would have asked: what makes these markers denote subjects to a life? It feels very much like judging a fish on how well it can climb trees; mammals certainly match human beings most closely in the way they socialize, rear their young, act out their emotions and thoughts - but how egotistical must we be to only extend dignity to things that are similar to us? And why such an arbitrary line? It could be redrawn anywhere to include or exclude other fauna and flora.
Regan fully acknowledges this (p.366), but for me the framework suffers. This is one of those places where this level of “reasoned abstraction” just gets unnecessarily in its own weeds. Regan’s conception (within this book) of his “subjects to a life” is needlessly overwrought and arbitrary. The Case for Animal Rights is important work in animal ethics, but a framework (I believe) we do not need to hold fast to. 3.5 stars.
1) I don’t claim to be a philosopher, but Ive read a good deal of theory, metaphysics, ethics, ontology, etc. Many of the points Regan takes time to take down are extremely valuable for someone not versed in these arguments and their counterarguments. However, for me, a lot here was unnecessary and sometimes got repetitive. Regan acknowledges this in the intro, noting that its impossible to write a book arguing ethics that fits both a layperson with no background and a philosophy professor. I think he does a great job leading readers through potentially tangled discussions of morality and values, but I personally did not need the plodding minutiae laid out. It got to the point where in some chapters I skipped to the summary that Regan places at the end. If I had questions about something referenced or a detail I wanted more insight to, I’d go back. Otherwise, I kinda knew the material being covered.
2) Regan’s conception of subjects-to-a-life feels antiquated now in 2022. His basic thesis specifically argues that mammals have moral rights because they are “subjects of lives,” that is, roughly, conscious, sentient beings with an experiential welfare. This view feels both too much and too little. Regan spends so much time building this edifice of reasoned thought where I would have asked: what makes these markers denote subjects to a life? It feels very much like judging a fish on how well it can climb trees; mammals certainly match human beings most closely in the way they socialize, rear their young, act out their emotions and thoughts - but how egotistical must we be to only extend dignity to things that are similar to us? And why such an arbitrary line? It could be redrawn anywhere to include or exclude other fauna and flora.
Regan fully acknowledges this (p.366), but for me the framework suffers. This is one of those places where this level of “reasoned abstraction” just gets unnecessarily in its own weeds. Regan’s conception (within this book) of his “subjects to a life” is needlessly overwrought and arbitrary. The Case for Animal Rights is important work in animal ethics, but a framework (I believe) we do not need to hold fast to. 3.5 stars.