Animals Have Rights? Tabor R. Machan Concludes

¶ … Animals Have Rights?" Tabor R. Machan concludes that animals do not deserve the same consideration as human beings because they are incapable of making moral decisions themselves. Machan argues that animals are distinct beings and it is a mistake to categorize them as being equal to humans. In fact, Machan states that animals should be exploited in some cases, if to do so will improve human quality of life. The author unabashedly places human beings at the top of the life spectrum, asserting that human beings are more important than animals because of our moral faculties. However, Machan does feel that animals should be treated judiciously and not cruelly.

Machan is largely utilitarian in his approach to the animal rights issue. The author argues that because animals can be used to benefit human beings, that they should not be "liberated," or protected. The author also argues that the rights conferred on human beings are not shared by animals because those creatures are fundamentally different from human beings. Namely, animals have no capacity for moral or ethical understanding. In fact, Machan argues that this is one of the weaknesses in the animal rights ideology. Human beings must make the moral decision to protect animals, proving that animals don't have that capacity themselves. Machan also asserts that human beings can and should be considered as superior to other animals.

Machan's argument against the liberation or protection of animals is largely logical, but the author fails to account for the "ethics of care." While it is easy to condone the exploitation of animals on the basis of it being a logical practice, Machan fails to account for the emotionally based arguments raised by animal rights activists. Although Machan's argument is solid on paper, he does not take into consideration other types of ethical theories such as that of Annette C. Bair.

Machan states that animals and humans are fundamentally different, and that one of those fundamental differences is the ability to make moral decisions. However, he bases his argument more on the presence of self-consciousness than on reality. Animals rarely, if ever, kill except for food or self-defense. Humans, on the other hand, kill other humans for a number of unethical, morally unjust reasons. Animals, because they would never perform such actions, could be considered morally superior to human beings. Machan's conclusion is correct: animals and humans are different. However, that difference is due more to brain functions and not morality.

The main ethical principle used by the author is the "respect for persons." Machan argues that human autonomy is superlative to any other ethical notion. While Machan sounds utilitarian at times, especially in regards to his views on animal testing, his utilitarianism is limited to human beings and does not extend to other sentient beings. While Machan urges people to develop moral virtues so as to not grossly mistreat animals, his argument is not virtue-based.