Paper 2
In this paper, I will discuss Mary Anne Warren's "Speaking of Animal Rights" which discusses the strength animals have to rights. Warren’s paper is rebuttal to Tom Regan “The Case for Animal Rights” I agree with Warren that humans' reason responsiveness makes human rights more important. I will explain her argument which focuses on humans' ability to listen to reason as morally relevant to the strength of their rights. She then uses that ability as reasoning to not to extend these rights to other creatures. I will then evaluate the strength of her argument.
Warren uses reason, morality and recognition of moral equality as the basis of her argument to weaker rights for animals. Warren states the rationality, the ability to listen to …show more content…
The main objections to her argument are how to test reason responsiveness and where to draw this sharp line of division. The line of the division should in no way be a true argument because its deeply flawed in Regan’s description. Warren describes this sharp line as arbitrary because the dividing based on certain factors would get to specific and still include and exclude certain species. If we use Regan’s belief of mature mammals it would include a wider variety of mammals. Which exclude some mature mammals that fit criteria on a case-by-case basis, making this sharp line a controversial point based in opinion and a bad foundation of an argument. It is also hard to draw a comparison to babies and people with medical needs to animals, except on some cases of family pets and their relation to family. This argument should be focused on mature developed mammals because designating this to something with little or no brain function is unfair and biased. This brings me to testing reason responsiveness, testing immature mammals would skew the results. Many immature mammals brain lack full development and understanding of basic tasks to help them succeed in life. Once a mammal is able to learn the necessary task to keep their life sustainable then test for reason responsiveness. The way to test for reason responsiveness is simply stated by Warren. It is a situational matter, “test to see if the mammal can be moved to inaction or action by the force of reasoned argument.” If we test almost any immature mammal we would get the same result. Also, if we tested a mature mammal with certain handicaps we can expect certain outcomes. By limiting testing is makes it easier to draw this sharp line and see the deterrence of certain behaviors. In both these objections there are definite things that solve their lessened rights also. Babies and
In this paper, I will discuss Mary Anne Warren's "Speaking of Animal Rights" which discusses the strength animals have to rights. Warren’s paper is rebuttal to Tom Regan “The Case for Animal Rights” I agree with Warren that humans' reason responsiveness makes human rights more important. I will explain her argument which focuses on humans' ability to listen to reason as morally relevant to the strength of their rights. She then uses that ability as reasoning to not to extend these rights to other creatures. I will then evaluate the strength of her argument.
Warren uses reason, morality and recognition of moral equality as the basis of her argument to weaker rights for animals. Warren states the rationality, the ability to listen to …show more content…
The main objections to her argument are how to test reason responsiveness and where to draw this sharp line of division. The line of the division should in no way be a true argument because its deeply flawed in Regan’s description. Warren describes this sharp line as arbitrary because the dividing based on certain factors would get to specific and still include and exclude certain species. If we use Regan’s belief of mature mammals it would include a wider variety of mammals. Which exclude some mature mammals that fit criteria on a case-by-case basis, making this sharp line a controversial point based in opinion and a bad foundation of an argument. It is also hard to draw a comparison to babies and people with medical needs to animals, except on some cases of family pets and their relation to family. This argument should be focused on mature developed mammals because designating this to something with little or no brain function is unfair and biased. This brings me to testing reason responsiveness, testing immature mammals would skew the results. Many immature mammals brain lack full development and understanding of basic tasks to help them succeed in life. Once a mammal is able to learn the necessary task to keep their life sustainable then test for reason responsiveness. The way to test for reason responsiveness is simply stated by Warren. It is a situational matter, “test to see if the mammal can be moved to inaction or action by the force of reasoned argument.” If we test almost any immature mammal we would get the same result. Also, if we tested a mature mammal with certain handicaps we can expect certain outcomes. By limiting testing is makes it easier to draw this sharp line and see the deterrence of certain behaviors. In both these objections there are definite things that solve their lessened rights also. Babies and