Enjoy fast, free delivery, exclusive deals, and award-winning movies & TV shows with Prime
Try Prime
and start saving today with fast, free delivery
Amazon Prime includes:
Fast, FREE Delivery is available to Prime members. To join, select "Try Amazon Prime and start saving today with Fast, FREE Delivery" below the Add to Cart button.
Amazon Prime members enjoy:- Cardmembers earn 5% Back at Amazon.com with a Prime Credit Card.
- Unlimited Free Two-Day Delivery
- Streaming of thousands of movies and TV shows with limited ads on Prime Video.
- A Kindle book to borrow for free each month - with no due dates
- Listen to over 2 million songs and hundreds of playlists
- Unlimited photo storage with anywhere access
Important: Your credit card will NOT be charged when you start your free trial or if you cancel during the trial period. If you're happy with Amazon Prime, do nothing. At the end of the free trial, your membership will automatically upgrade to a monthly membership.
$34.95$34.95
Ships from: Amazon.com Sold by: Amazon.com
$11.71$11.71
$3.98 delivery May 20 - 21
Ships from: glenthebookseller Sold by: glenthebookseller
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
OK
The Case for Animal Rights Paperback – September 17, 2004
Purchase options and add-ons
- Print length474 pages
- LanguageEnglish
- PublisherUniversity of California Press
- Publication dateSeptember 17, 2004
- Dimensions5.5 x 1.2 x 8.25 inches
- ISBN-100520243862
- ISBN-13978-0520243866
The Amazon Book Review
Book recommendations, author interviews, editors' picks, and more. Read it now.
Frequently bought together
Similar items that may deliver to you quickly
Editorial Reviews
Review
From the Inside Flap
"Tom Regan's now classic Case For Animal Rights blends careful argument with intense moral concern. For two decades, where Regan has been taken seriously, animals have been better off and people have become better persons. This new edition is a welcome sign of this influence continuing." Holmes Rolston, III, University Distinguished Professor, Colorado State University
"A bold and nuanced analysis of the inherent value and moral standing of nonhuman animals. It may also be the most consistent and unyielding defense of animal rights." Tom L. Beauchamp, Georgetown University
"The most powerful and plausible consideration of the issues and defense of animal rights yet to be produced (or likely to be)." Richard Wasserstrom
"By far the best work on the subject, and will continue to be the definitive work for years to come . . . .[It is] destined to become a 'modern classic' in the field of ethics, alongside Rawls s A Theory of Justice and Nozick s Anarchy, State, and Utopia." Alastair S. Gunn, coauthor of Hold Paramount
Praise for the first edition:
"Unquestionably the best work yet to appear in its field, surpassing even Peter Singer's famous Animal Liberation in originality, thoroughness, and rigor." Choice
"The Case for Animal Rights is beyond question the most important philosophical contribution to animal rights and is a major work in moral philosophy." Animal Law Review
"The most powerful and plausible consideration of the issues and defense of animal rights yet to be produced (or likely to be)." Richard Wasserstrom, author of Philosophy and Social Issues (1980)
From the Back Cover
"Tom Regan's now classic Case For Animal Rights blends careful argument with intense moral concern. For two decades, where Regan has been taken seriously, animals have been better off and people have become better persons. This new edition is a welcome sign of this influence continuing."―Holmes Rolston, III, University Distinguished Professor, Colorado State University
"A bold and nuanced analysis of the inherent value and moral standing of nonhuman animals. It may also be the most consistent and unyielding defense of animal rights."―Tom L. Beauchamp, Georgetown University
"The most powerful and plausible consideration of the issues and defense of animal rights yet to be produced (or likely to be)."―Richard Wasserstrom
"By far the best work on the subject, and will continue to be the definitive work for years to come . . . .[It is] destined to become a 'modern classic' in the field of ethics, alongside Rawls’s A Theory of Justice and Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia."―Alastair S. Gunn, coauthor of Hold Paramount
Praise for the first edition:
"Unquestionably the best work yet to appear in its field, surpassing even Peter Singer's famous Animal Liberation in originality, thoroughness, and rigor."―Choice
"The Case for Animal Rights is beyond question the most important philosophical contribution to animal rights and is a major work in moral philosophy."―Animal Law Review
"The most powerful and plausible consideration of the issues and defense of animal rights yet to be produced (or likely to be)."―Richard Wasserstrom, author of Philosophy and Social Issues (1980)
About the Author
Product details
- Publisher : University of California Press; First Edition, Updated with a New Preface (September 17, 2004)
- Language : English
- Paperback : 474 pages
- ISBN-10 : 0520243862
- ISBN-13 : 978-0520243866
- Item Weight : 1.3 pounds
- Dimensions : 5.5 x 1.2 x 8.25 inches
- Best Sellers Rank: #721,018 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #250 in Animal Rights (Books)
- #2,482 in Philosophy of Ethics & Morality
- Customer Reviews:
About the author
Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read author blogs and more
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on Amazon-
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
But Tom Regan's now-classic book -- this one -- is a different story. This is a tour-de-force of ethical argumentation that makes the titular case about as well as it's ever going to be made. Regan doesn't simplify any issues and he's very much alive to fine ethical nuances. And he sets out his case with both rigor and vigor.
Probably most of us won't have any problem agreeing that at least some nonhuman animals are conscious, but there _have_ been people who have denied it (most famously, Rene Descartes). So for completeness, Regan begins with a careful discussion of the question. Avoiding simplistic answers and over-eager claims about research on e.g. animal language, he mounts a solid case that at least some nonhumans do possess consciousness.
(Some of his arguments are a bit weaker than he thinks they are, although I still agree with his conclusions. For example, he argues that possession of language skills can't be an indicator of consciousness because human infants are presumably conscious before they acquire a language; how else, indeed, would they acquire it? But this shows only that _present_ possession of linguistic ability isn't a necessary condition of consciousness; it doesn't show that the ability to _learn_ a language isn't such a condition. As I said, though, I agree with his conclusion; I'm merely criticizing the way he gets to it.)
The remainder of the book is a wide-ranging discussion, not just of animal rights, but of ethics generally. Even aside from Regan's nominal topic, the volume could serve as a fine introduction to ethical thought in general. (Among its many highlights: a short refutation of Jan Narveson's "rational egoism" that could double as a refutation of Ayn Rand's even sillier version.)
In the end, what this gets us is a careful case for regarding mammalian animals which are at least a year old as possessors of "rights." (Regan also argues that for other reasons, we could and should want to extend "rights" to other animals; he has limited his discussion to mammals in order to keep to what he takes to be a fairly clear-cut case.) These "rights" do not, he holds, trump every other ethical consideration under the sun; in particular, in emergency situations in which either (say) a human being or a dog (or a million dogs) must be killed, we should kill the dog (or dogs) every time. These "rights" are _prima facie_ moral claims -- strong, but not indefeasible.
What I think Regan has successfully shown is that living beings don't have to be moral _agents_ in order to count in our moral deliberations. And with most of what he says on this subject, I heartily agree; in particular I think he has made just the right distinction between moral agents and moral patients, and correctly argued that moral patients have _some_ sort of "right" to consideration.
I cannot, however, follow him _quite_ all the way to his conclusions -- for example, that we are morally obliged to be vegetarian and to refrain from using animals in all scientific research. Mind you, I've been a vegetarian myself and I think there _are_ good reasons for avoiding meat; I just don't think they're morally conclusive. I agree completely that many current practices are inhumane, and I also agree with a point Regan argues repeatedly: that moral limitations on what we can do with animals do _not_, as such, interfere with the operation of the free market. But I'm still not altogether sold.
(The problem -- to put it briefly and inadequately -- is that I think Regan assigns too much to moral _patients_ in the way of "rights." I'm not persuaded that in order to have a "right," it's enough that someone else could make a moral claim on your behalf. In other words, I disagree with Regan's contention that moral agents and moral patients are entitled to exactly the _same_ sorts of moral consideration.)
I don't, however, mind admitting that Regan has changed my mind on some points and may yet change my mind on others. If I ever _do_ change my mind on this last point, he will be in part responsible.
And at any rate I highly recommend this volume to any readers interested in the topic of animal rights. Moral reasoning doesn't get any better than this.
As for justifying animal welfare, I found it less convincing. Regan's reason for rejecting Singer's argument for utilitarianism is because utilitarianism could sometimes justify sacrificing an animal, and he wants a moral guideline that will not allow that. Well, this is certainly assuming your conclusion, and made me wonder how much of the work was honest reasoning, and how much was a political spin document.
But the ultimate problem for me in accepting the arguments was in two areas. First, the absolutist nature of rights (either you have them, or you don't and they are non-negotiable) flies in the face of what is reasonable in the world. If a fish is not conscious, it has no rights, and if it is, its rights equal mine, even though its consiousness may be so marginal that we are extremely uncertain whether it even exists. Instead, for any consciousness-based rights system to be funcitonal, it must be based on DEGREE of consciousness, so a fish has less rights than a mouse, who has less rights than a mature human. (If mice have as many rights as humans, then almost all human activity is unacceptable -- plowing/tilling kills small rodents, as does driving, as does ANY construction work of any kind -- his mine rescue example neglects that all his options, including digging the mine in the first place, disturbs the soil fatally for some small rodents.) But Regan will not accept this, partially because any such scheme would be extremely difficult to work out, but primarily because it would allow the use/abuse of animals in some cases -- a consequence he will not accept (per his rejection of Singer) even if the reasoning for it is valid.
The second objection is that this scheme takes no account of the welfare of future beings. Extinction to him is a concern of corporatist ethics, when all that matters according to him are the individuals CURRENTLY involved. But an ethics which cannot provide a rationale to prevent future ecosystem destruction, or to prevent mass extinctions say by a comet impact 100 years in the future of individuals who are not alive today and therefore do not compute for rights calculations is deeply flawed in providing moral guidance.
These weaknesses are correctable, and this work could be improved to become a fairly compelling and general moral guideline. But to do so will result in drastically weakening the justification for animal welfare in his work, so I expect they will not be adressed, and this work will remain an interesting, but ulimately unconvincing excercise, serving solely to rally the faithful.