The Skeptics Society & Skeptic magazine

Recently, a law banning the consumption of dog meat was passed by the National Assembly of Korea. One of the main goals of domestic animal rights activists and dog lovers has been accomplished. However, quite a few people were dissatisfied with the passing of this particular law, asking why it refers specifically to dogs, but does not protect cows and pigs. Those who welcomed the species-specific ban responded to such reactions by citing the thousands of years of companionship shared between dogs and humans, and our uniquely close bond.

Animal ethics, a division within applied ethics that deals with such disputes over animal issues, is one of today’s most hotly debated fields. It includes discussions on the moral status of animals, the use of animals for food or for experimentation, the ethics of having zoos, aquariums, xenotransplantation, and consumption of dog meat, among various other topics. Such topics are not only interesting in their own right but also invite us to reflect critically on our often-assumed position atop the animal kingdom.

Can humans do with animals as they please?

Until relatively recently, people considered animals merely as tools for human use, thinking that the use of animals in any way was entirely up to humans. What is the basis for such thinking? And can such assumptions be justified?

One of the reasons some people think humans can do whatever they want with animals is that our species now sits atop of the food pyramid, and that position justifies our dominance over animals. They argue that humans have the power to subdue animals and that using this power to treat animals as they please is thereby justified.

With a bit of thought, however, it is not difficult to recognize that this logic is flawed. If the logic of power were justified, then imperialist invasions could be justified, as would be the actions of bullies who harass weaker peers in schools. Invoking power is a logic that thoroughly represents the perspective of the strong, but if we consider ourselves in the position of the weak in a Rawlsian “veil of ignorance” thought experiment, we can see that this reasoning is flawed. If we encountered an extraterrestrial intelligence vastly superior to humans, would we accept the logic of power and agree they could exploit us as food? Obviously not.

One reason that makes the logic of power seem justified is the failure to distinguish facts from values. The two are distinctly different; for example, it is a fact that the strong dominate the weak. The world is indeed a place where the powerful rule over others, such as the wealthy oppressing the poor or the strong bullying the weak. However, just because such practices are facts does not mean they are values we should accept. In philosophy, this mistake of deriving value directly from fact is called the naturalistic fallacy. That humans dominate animals is a fact, but that does not justify it as right, as something we ought to do.

Did God grant dominion to humans?

Christianity, which has established itself as world’s largest and most widespread religion with approximately 2.4 billion followers, has long believed that humans are the crown of creation, were made in the image and likeness of God, and are endowed with rationality unique among all of God’s creatures. This belief justifies the special position of humans who, possessing these characteristics, should be the subject of greater concern compared to other animals, and in cases of conflicting interests between humans and other beings, the latter should yield to the former. From the Christian perspective, all beings, including animals, ultimately exist for God, while in this world, they exist for humans, as commanded in Genesis 9:1–3:

Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.

There is debate over whether interpreting such messages as granting humans the right to treat other animals as they wish is appropriate. Indeed, there is room to interpret this dominion as meaning that humans must fulfill their duty to God by being wise stewards of His creation and therefore making efforts to protect animals. Nevertheless, if indeed God has bestowed such authority upon humans, then they would be able to treat animals as they see fit.

The real problem with this argument arises due to the fact it is specifically rooted in the God of Christianity (as well as Judaism and Islam), and adherents of other religions and agnostics and atheists would therefore not accept this position. Hinduism, for example, advocates respect for animals, teaching that all living beings are imbued with divinity, and those who adhere to this religion would argue for the importance of respecting animals. Justifying human dominion over animals based on the doctrines or teachings of a specific religion lacks persuasiveness. If one were not a follower of that religion, they could simply reject such a position.

Are humans fundamentally different from other animals?

Whatever the reason, we tend to believe that humans are fundamentally different from other animals, and that this difference justifies our dominion over them. Human rationality is often used to highlight the distinction between people and animals, with particular focus on intelligence or capacity for moral reasoning as the specific differences that demonstrate human superiority. Even conceding these differences, do they justify the various forms of abuse perpetrated against animals for consumption or experimentation?

Consider how we treat humans who lack these abilities. For example, while rationality is a capability that the average adult possesses, there are members of society who lack it entirely, such as those with severe intellectual disabilities, individuals in a vegetative state, infants, or those with dementia. Yet, we do not believe anyone can treat these individuals in the same way they are allowed to treat most animals. If this is the case, we cannot justify discrimination based merely on the presence or absence of rationality, and therefore, we cannot justify unfair treatment of animals by claiming they lack rationality. This argument about how to treat those who lack some of the capabilities that the average adult possesses is referred to by ethicists as the argument from marginal cases. If we contemplate how to treat people who lack these abilities, we cannot justify discrimination against animals by claiming they lack these abilities, if we seek any kind of consistency.

Some argue that merely being human can be a reason to respect humans, and that it can become a basis for discriminating against animals. However, this logic is no different from the rationale behind sexism or racism, which treats only individuals of the same sex or race equally and discriminates against those who do not belong to that category. Just as discriminating based on gender is called sexism and discriminating based on race is called racism, discriminating based on species is termed speciesism.

The position that humans can treat animals arbitrarily is generally unconvincing. Conversely, however, if humans should not treat animals arbitrarily, what is the rationale? Ethicists believe various moral judgments made in different situations should be justified through some ultimate standard. For example, they argue that judgments about whether it is permissible to eat animals should be justified through moral theory. Peter Singer and Tom Regan are prominent philosophers who argue that animals should be granted moral status in this way. Singer argues for moral status through utilitarianism, while Regan attempts to grant moral status to animals through rights theory.

Animals That Feel Pleasure and Pain

Peter Singer is the first philosopher to systematically grant moral status to animals. His 1975 book Animal Liberation is referred to as the bible of the animal rights movement and marks the beginning of the debate about the moral status of animals. Before its publication, people did raise issues with factory farming and animal experiments, and while veganism existed, Singer’s work made a significant impact because it was both an exposé and outlined a rational argument for liberating animals. Singer persuasively argued that animals must be granted moral status based on ethical theory, while highlighting—at the time largely unknown to the public—the horrific abuse inflicted upon animals used for experimentation and meat consumption.

Singer uses utilitarianism to show that animals have moral status. Roughly speaking, utilitarianism considers pleasure good and pain evil. According to Singer, any being that can feel pleasure and pain is a subject of moral consideration. He calls such creatures “sentient beings,” a category that includes mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish that possess a central nervous system. Animals raised in factory farms for meat, such as cows, pigs, and chickens, and animals used for experiments, such as mice and monkeys, live in extreme pain throughout their lives. Releasing them from this pain is a logical and moral obligation of utilitarianism.

Singer formalizes utilitarianism as the principle of equal consideration of interests. This principle demands that the interests of every being be equally considered. This includes all sentient beings, not just humans. Singer believes there should be no special differences in interests, whether they are human or non-human animals. If an animal feels 100 units of pain and a human feels 10 units of pain, other conditions being equal, the animal’s pain should be prioritized. If we think otherwise and give priority to human pain simply because it is human, we are not considering interests equally. To do so is evidence of a specialist attitude that grants priority to humans over animals simply because they are human.

Animals as Subjects of a Life

While Peter Singer used utilitarianism to justify the moral treatment of animals, Tom Regan attempted to grant animals moral status using rights theory. Regan’s rights theory, along with Singer’s position, is considered a philosophical foundation of the animal rights movement, particularly in the English-speaking world.

Regan’s seminal work is The Case for Animal Rights, published in 1983. This book argues, with meticulous logic, that animals that meet certain criteria have an absolute moral status. According to Regan, any being with “inherent value” has rights. Here, rights refer to “ethical values” different from legal rights that vary by society or state. These are rights that protect the inherent value of all beings equally. This value is logically distinct from other types of value, such as utility or aesthetic value, and cannot be reduced to them. It also corresponds to what Kant posits when considering rational beings as ends in themselves; either all beings possess this value or none do, and there are no degrees of possession. Regan asserts that beings possessing this value are equal in having it.

So, who possesses this value? According to Regan, “subjects of a life” have inherent value. These beings possess certain characteristics, such as awareness, desire, intention, purpose, belief, perception, memory, emotion, and self-awareness. Most humans meet these criteria, as do most mammals older than one year. Thus, non-human animals such as mammals older than one year have inherent value. Beings with inherent value have the right to be treated as ends in themselves, not as means to an end. This means it is not permissible to violate the inherent value of these beings for another being’s benefit. Consequently, Regan argues that using animals as food, for experiments, hunting, or display in zoos violates their inherent value and is therefore wrong.

This article appeared in Skeptic magazine 29.3
Buy print edition
Buy digital edition
Subscribe to print edition
Subscribe to digital edition
Download our app

In this regard, Regan contrasts with Singer, who, in some instances, deals somewhat leniently with the issue by leaving room for the possibility of taking the lives of animals beyond certain criteria. Singer’s allowance for taking animal lives stems from the perspective of utilitarianism, where if killing animals produces significantly more benefits than pain, or if it’s possible to kill animals without any pain at all, then it may be permissible. This is an inevitable conclusion from the utilitarian standpoint, but Regan rejects such a moderate stance of utilitarianism and firmly grants moral status to animals.

As recently reported by Peter Singer in his 2023 book Animal Liberation Now, research conducted in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland found that 67 percent of ethicists and 63 percent of non-ethics philosophy professors considered it morally wrong to eat meat from mammals. This shows that even though there may be a relatively high percentage of professors who believe eating meat is wrong, there is still a significant number of ethicists or philosophy professors who do not particularly see eating meat as wrong.

When contemplating this issue, we must not base our judgments on intuition, personal preference, or habit, but rather on reason—at least if we aim to avoid logical errors and strive to maintain logical consistency. This is important not only when discussing animal rights, but also if we hope to lead a morally sound life.