The Animal Rights Theory Objection
Those who embrace the animal rights philosophy will object to hunting, for its deliberate infliction of pain upon animals that violates the rights of animals as subjects of life. Tom Regan particularly espouses this view. He says of hunters: “What they do is wrong because they are parties to a practice that treats animals as if they were a naturally recurring renewable resource, the value of which is to be measured by, and managed by reference to, human recreational, gustatory, aesthetic, social, and other interests” (Regan, 356). Regan posits that animals have intrinsic value and should not merely be used as means to humans’ ends. Hunting, in his eye, fails to respect the animals and the rights they are due. He particularly objects to the human welfare argument that cites the human pleasures derived from hunting, arguing that by simply walking through the woods with a camera and friends, we can attain the pleasures of camaraderie, exercise, and nature without killing an animal (Regan, 353).
In his book “The Case for Animal Rights,” Regan rejects hunting as a means of population control in its assumption that death by hunting is worse than death by starvation, citing hunters with inaccurate shots and inhumane traps as potentially more painful. He also rejects wildlife management legislation, as it is constituted of decisions based on calculations of harms and benefits to animals; these calculations, regardless of the intent to minimize harm still violate rights: “Policies that lessen the total amount of harm at the cost of violating the rights of individuals, whether these individuals are moral agents or patients, and, if the latter, human or animal, are wrong” (Bruckner, 356). From this reasoning against hunting policy, I believe that Regan would reject my entire argument in its comparison of hunting and the wrongs of factory farming. Such a calculative analysis is irrelevant to Regan, who sees animal rights as practically inalienable.
In terms of meat consumption, Regan says, “an individual’s or organization’s position on ‘meat-eating’, so –called, should be regarded as the decisive litmus test of their moral credibility. To the extent that individuals and organizations still support or tolerate meat consumption, to that extent they are part of the moral problem, not part of the moral solution” (Regan, 70). This condemnation of meat consumption underlines Regan’s vegetarianism—a way of life that he supports for its respect of animal rights. The belief that animals have inviolate rights, such that Regan promotes, does not follow any sort of animal, human welfare, or virtue ethics argument. If rights are denied, the practice is wrong. Hence, hunting is wrong.
In his book “The Case for Animal Rights,” Regan rejects hunting as a means of population control in its assumption that death by hunting is worse than death by starvation, citing hunters with inaccurate shots and inhumane traps as potentially more painful. He also rejects wildlife management legislation, as it is constituted of decisions based on calculations of harms and benefits to animals; these calculations, regardless of the intent to minimize harm still violate rights: “Policies that lessen the total amount of harm at the cost of violating the rights of individuals, whether these individuals are moral agents or patients, and, if the latter, human or animal, are wrong” (Bruckner, 356). From this reasoning against hunting policy, I believe that Regan would reject my entire argument in its comparison of hunting and the wrongs of factory farming. Such a calculative analysis is irrelevant to Regan, who sees animal rights as practically inalienable.
In terms of meat consumption, Regan says, “an individual’s or organization’s position on ‘meat-eating’, so –called, should be regarded as the decisive litmus test of their moral credibility. To the extent that individuals and organizations still support or tolerate meat consumption, to that extent they are part of the moral problem, not part of the moral solution” (Regan, 70). This condemnation of meat consumption underlines Regan’s vegetarianism—a way of life that he supports for its respect of animal rights. The belief that animals have inviolate rights, such that Regan promotes, does not follow any sort of animal, human welfare, or virtue ethics argument. If rights are denied, the practice is wrong. Hence, hunting is wrong.