Group Report 1:
Brittany Jette, Giahuy Lenguyen, Kaustubh Pandit, Rachael Zmich
Anker, Peder. “A Vindication of the Rights of Brutes.” Philosophy & Geography, vol. 7, no. 2, 2004, pp. 259–264., doi:10.1080/1090377042000285462.
The title of the piece that was read is “A Vindication of the Rights of Brutes” by Peder Anker. Professor Peder Anker is a professor at New York University where he teaches and researches the following subjects: the history of science, ecology, environmentalism, and design, and environmental philosophy. Professor Anker received a Ph.D. from Harvard University in History of Science in 1999. Overall, considering the level of education and subjects of degrees Anker has received, it has been determined that Anker is a reliable source and has authority to speak on this issue. (NYU Gallatin)
The publication is an online journal. It talks about the issues involving philosophy and geography and their intersection. The journal has articles with a scholarly focus with imaginative theories and ideas. The article is written by a historian of environmental sciences. He approaches the animal rights topic as an evolution of female rights and racism. He also approaches the history of animal rights as the discussion of a joke concerning human rights.
In this article, Anker explains his view on animal rights using evidence as well as some opinion. The main argument he addresses is the fact that in order to survive, rights cannot always be followed. When he says this, he means that if everything had rights and were entitled to those rights, then those rights would need to be violated in order to survive. His writing style is very Anthropocentric and he explains that a world with no boundaries would allow any actions since there would be no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ in our eyes. This idea that everything can have rights would bring a more human-centered world, however, it would not imply animal cruelty or destruction. Anker reminisces on times before Animal Rights became a serious issue. It may have been supported by individuals in society but this was overshadowed by those who ridiculed the idea, similar to equal rights for women and varying races.
Anker uses evidence to back up his main argument, however other points are uncertain. An example of the evidence is on page 1 when he says that the book focuses on animal rights because “they can reason, speak, and have emotions,” (Anker, 1). He also discusses that they were born with them like humans are, not given these rights from human obligation or sympathy. On page 3, the beginning of the second paragraph states that “God has made all things equal” (Anker, 3) but then goes on to explain how Taylor created a booklet which ridiculed animal rights by making extreme and ridiculous comparisons to human lives, such as “elephants getting married”. This is a discontinuity in the writing or the topic at hand that seems confusing to a reader.
In chapter 1 on page 8 of Singer’s Preface, he references Bentham who speaks of rights in a passage stating, “Bentham famously described ‘natural rights’ as ‘nonsense’ and ‘natural and imprescriptible rights ‘as’ nonsense tilt’”. This is similar to how Anker refers to Thomas Taylor who wrote a pamphlet promoting human rights as equal because he saw such thinking as a threat to the aristocracy. Anker states “Taylor’s old pamphlet also provokes the question of whether or not animal rights, and by extension, rights of the rest of the natural world, may turn human rights into a joke” (Anker, 3). Both passages are similar on how they promote the idea of how they find the direction of animal and natural awareness as rubbish to where humans would end up not having any distinctions with their rights.
The pamphlet “Vindication of the Rights of Brutes”, which was mentioned in Anker’s article, published an article suggesting animals were entitled to rights because of their fundamental characteristics and not because of human obligations or sympathy towards them. DeGrazia builds upon the idea by bringing forth the sliding-scale model where he states, “Humans deserve full, equal consideration, other animals deserve consideration in proportion to their cognitive, emotional, and social complexity.” This addresses the argument on how animals might not be considered equivalent to humans, but their complexity and unique nature.
During this reading, a few, new key points were introduced. This reading brought to light the idea that before the animal rights movement became a global issue, it was an idea that people often thought of as a joke. This raises the question of whether or not it is an individual’s responsibility to care about animal rights or does most of the society to have to see a need for change for any change to occur.
One of the other main ideas of this reading was the relationship between greater regulation and lower regulation and how that influences society’s actions to one extreme or the other. The question that this demand is, would higher regulation or lower regulation lead to a greater likelihood of animal rights being implemented and followed through?
Other Citations:
ResearchGate, www.researchgate.net/journal/1090-3771_Philosophy_and_Geography.
NYU Gallatin. “Peder Anker.” Peder Anker > Faculty > People > NYU Gallatin, gallatin.nyu.edu/people/faculty/pja7.html.