Animal rights: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 03:54, 14 January 2007

Revision as of 03:55, 14 January 2007

Line 168:

==Criticism==

Critics of the concept of animal rights argue that animals do not have the capacity to enter into a [[social contract]] or make moral choices <ref name=Regan1>. Regan, Tom. [http://articles.animalconcerns.org/ar-voices/archive/case_for_ar.html "The Case for Animal Rights"], retrieved April 20, 2006.</ref> and cannot respect the rights of others or understand the concept of rights, and therefore they cannot be regarded as possessors of moral rights. The philosopher [[Roger Scruton]] argues that only human beings have duties and that "[t]he corollary is inescapable: we alone have rights." Critics holding this position argue that there is nothing inherently wrong with using animals for food, as entertainment, and in research, though human beings may nevertheless have an obligation to ensure they do not suffer unnecessarily. <ref name=Frey>Frey, R.G. ''Interests and Rights: The Case against Animals''. Clarendon Press, 1980 ISBN 0-19-824421-5</ref><ref name=Scruton2>Scruton, Roger. ''Animal Rights and Wrongs'', Metro, 2000.ISBN 1-900512-81-5.</ref> This position is generally called the [[animal welfare]] position, and it is held by some of the oldest of the animal protection agencies: for example, by the [[Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals]] in the UK.

== See also ==