1.
Non-human Rights
LO: Do species other than humans have an intrinsic right to
exist?

2.
Complete the sentences
Anthropocentrism means ...
One argument for anthropocentric
environmentalism is ...
A conservationist would say that
Chernobyl ...
One challenge to human-centred
environmentalism might be ...

3.
Non-human rights

4.
Non-human rights
Are human beings
really morally
superior to members
of other species?

5.
Non-human rights
Are there rational
arguments for
Are human beings
assigning intrinsic
really morally
value to the
superior to members
natural
of other species?
environment and
non-humans?

6.
Speceism
“If a being suffers, there can be no
moral justification for refusing to
take that suffering into
consideration. No matter what the
nature of the being, the principle of
equality requires that the suffering
be counted equally with the like Peter Singer (b. 1946)
suffering.”
Utilitarian philosopher

7.
Speceism
“If possessing a higher intelligence
does not entitle one human to use
another for his own ends, how can
it entitle humans to exploit non-
humans for the same purpose?”
‘Equality for Animals’, in Practical Peter Singer (b. 1946)
Ethics (1979)
Utilitarian philosopher

8.
Peter Singer talks to Andrew Marr
(Sorry about the sound of typing!!!)
Listen carefully to the interview. Write down the answers to the following questions:
1. What is speceism?
2. Why does Singer not like the term “animal rights”?
3. What (and when) were the triggers for the British animal
rights movement?
4. How much has changed since the 1970s?
5. What does Singer think about the situation in China?
6. Do you agree that God has “dropped out” of the
environmental equation?
7. What about animal testing?

9.
the subject of a life is an individual
who cares about his or her life, which
has inherent value which does not
come in degrees and is not dependent
on the individual’s experiences or
utility to others
What’s wrong with the way animals are treated isn’t the details that
vary from case to case. It’s the whole system. The forelorness of the
veal calf is pathetic, heart-wrenching; the pulsating pain of the
chimp with electrodes planted deep in her brain is repulsive; the
slow, torturous death of the raccoon caught in the leg hold trap os
Tom Regan (b. 1938)
agonizing. But what is wrong isn’t the pain, isn’t the suffering, isn’t
the deprivation. These compound what’s wrong. Sometimes, often, The Case for Animal
they make it much, much worse. But they are not the fundamental Rights (1984)
wrong. The fundamental wrong is the system that allows us to view
animals as our resources, here for us - to be eaten, or surgically
manipulated, or exploited for sport or money. Once we accept this
view of animals as our resources, the rest is as predictable as it is
regrettable.

10.
Taylor uses Kantian ethical
theory to argue that animals have
a “good of their own”, which
humans have a duty to respect.
By adopting this attitude, we will be disposed to
give respectful consideration to their existence,
and also to see ourselves as bearing a special
relationship to them. Treating living things as
ends in themselves rather than as mere means to
human ends. Practices and policies aimed at
specific ways of preserving natural ecosystems
and ensuring physical environment as beneficial
as possible to as many species as possible.
Paul Taylor (b. 1943)

11.
“But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more
rational, as well as a more conversable, animal than an infant
of a day or a week or even a month old. But suppose they
were otherwise, what would it available? The question is not
can they reason? nor can they talk? but can they suffer?
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)
Consider this quote with reference to utilitarianism,
anthropocentrism and non-human rights.