Tom Regan responds to Peter Singer

[Guest guest]

<http://www.speakcampaigns.org/wp.php/>

 

 

 

<http://www.speakcampaigns.org/PD.php/>

 

<http://www.speakcampaigns.org/Contact_the_funders.php/>

 

<http://www.speakcampaigns.org/legaleagle.php/>

http://www.speakcampaigns.org/articles/20061128tomregan.php

 

<http://www.speakcampaigns.org/emailalerts.php/>

 

<http://www.speakcampaigns.org/vodafone.php>

Tom Regan Replies to Peter Singer

 

ANIMAL RIGHTS AND ANIMAL TESTING

by Tom Regan

 

In " Father of animal activism backs monkey testing " (The Sunday Times, Times

Online, November 26, 2006, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/

0,,1-523-2471990-523,00.html), philosopher Peter Singer is quoted as saying

that research that involved giving Parkinson's disease to monkeys was

" justifiable. "

 

Singer expresses his opinion as part of an exchange between him and one of

the researchers, Tipu Aziz, an Oxford neurosurgeon who tells Singer that

" [t]o date 40,000 people have been made better " because of the research done

on " only 100 monkeys. " The exchange is part of a BBC2 program, " Monkeys,

Rats and Me: Animal Testing, " that aired on 27 November.

 

What makes Singer's opinion noteworthy is not what he thinks but who he is

said to be. He is (we are told) " [t]he father of the modern animal rights

movement, " and his book, *Animal Liberation*, " is now considered the bible

of the [animal rights] movement. " Taken together, these two statements would

naturally lead people to infer that Singer believes in animal rights, and

that the judgment he makes (that the research is " justifiable " ) is one that

animal rights advocates would accept.

 

Neither inference is true. The Peter Singer interviewed on the BBC2 program

does not believe that nonhuman animals have basic moral rights. As early as

1978, three years after the publication of *Animal Liberation*, he

explicitly disavowed this belief.

 

No, Singer's moral convictions are those of a utilitarian. He believes that

consequences determine moral right and wrong. Right actions bring about the

best consequences. Wrong actions fail to do so. It is open to Singer,

therefore, to judge the research " justifiable, " which he does, based on the

consequences Dr. Aziz describes

 

People who believe in animal rights could not disagree more. The role basic

moral rights play, whomsoever's rights they are, is to protect individuals

against the very type of abuse so painfully illustrated by the monkey

research under review. The basic moral rights of the individual (the rights

to life and bodily integrity, for example) should never be violated in the

name of reaping benefits for others.

 

Obviously, nothing I have said here proves that monkeys or other nonhuman

animals have basic moral rights, or that utilitarianism is a flawed moral

outlook. These are matters I have explored in other places. My far more

modest objectives have been to correct some misunderstandings: first, that

Peter Singer is an advocate of animal rights (he is not) and, second, that

his judgment (that the research is " justifiable " ) would be endorsed by

animal rights advocates (it would not).

 

There remains a final misunderstanding that needs to be set right. In the

Sunday Times story, Gareth Walsh writes that " [singer] said last week that

he stood by his comments to Aziz, provided the monkeys had been treated as

well as possible, " to which Aziz is quoted as saying, " It just shows (SPEAK)

haven't a case, to be honest. "

 

Precisely what is it that shows that SPEAK has no case against vivisection

in general, the construction of the new research laboratory at Oxford in

particular? It can only be that *Peter Singer* stands by his judgment that

the research in which Aziz participated was " justifiable. " It is the fact

that *Peter Singer said this* that is supposed to expose SPEAK's opposition

as groundless.

 

One must hope that Dr. Aziz is a better researcher than he is a thinker. It

is an elementary principle of logic that no statement is true because of the

identity of the person who makes it. Granted, Peter Singer is an influential

philosopher. But not even Peter Singer can make statements true merely by

making them. The truth of the matter is, Dr. Aziz and his colleagues will

need to address SPEAK's opposition on its merits, not pretend that they have

done so by enlisting Peter Singer on their side.

------------------------------

 

*Tom Regan is emeritus professor of philosophy, North Carolina State

University (USA). His books include The Case for Animal Rights and Empty

Cages: Facing the Challenge of Animal

Rights<http://www.tomregan-animalrights.com/>

..*