AT: “Rights Talk Bad” – Alternatives Bad

AT: “Rights Talk Bad” – Alternatives Bad

Tom Regan, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, North Carolina State University, 2001, Defending Animal Rights, p. 37-8

There is, then, I believe, a much better way to understand animal liberation than the one provided by an egalitarian interpretation of interests. It takes its cue from other kinds of liberation and rests the call for animal liberation on the recognition of the rights of nonhuman animals. When viewed in this light, animal liberation is the goal for which the philosophy of animal rights is the philosophy. The two—animal liberation and animal rights—go together like a hand in a vinyl glove.

AT: “CLS Kritik of Rights” – Animal Rights Solve the K

Unleashing Rights: law, meaning and the animal rights movement, p. 79

I will also suggest two primary reasons why the infusion of these alternative values is likely to be successful in altering and reinvigorating rights language. First, as in the previous chapter, I will suggest that it is the very move to animal rights that advance the adjustment in the underlying meaning of rights. Advancing rights for animals has inspired a focus on the relationship between humans and their nonhuman counterparts. Addressing this relationship has highlighted the shared characteristic of sentience and put forth the notion that it is sentience, not rationality, that makes one a member of the moral community. Moreover, since animals cannot claim or secure their rights within the human community, extending rights to animals has enhanced the notions of care and responsibility. Overall, the move to animal rights has promoted a wider sense of community—one that incorporates both human and nonhuman life.
EXTENSION OF RIGHTS DISCOURSE TO ANIMALS SOLVES THE COMMUNITARIAN CRITIQUE OF RIGHTS

Silverstein, Professor, Lafayette College of Government and law, 1996

Unleashing Rights: law, meaning and the animal rights movement, p. 79

This last point is most crucial for understanding the way this movement has constituted the meaning of rights and for responding to critics of rights language. Critics of rights contend, among other things, that the language is embedded within traditional liberal ideology that privileges the value of individualism. By privileging individualism, rights language fosters separation and conflict and thereby inhibits appreciation for relationship and community. In addition, the dominant conception of rights in this culture, critics argue, is a negative one that stresses the right to be free from the interference of others and the state. As such, rights language undermines the values of responsibility and caring within the community.

If, as will be argued here, the deployment of rights language by this social movement effectively supports the concepts of relationship, caring, responsibility, and community, then we may conclude that critics have been inaccurate in their attack against rights. We may further conclude that infusing rights with content that competes with individualism provides the opportunity to reinvigorate the power and meaning of language. Finally, we may interpret this appropriation of rights not simply as one that seeks to include a marginalized group into the mainstream but as one that challenges and attempts to transform the very conception and understanding of the language. In other words, the deployment of rights by this movement both extends the language and, more importantly, alters the underlying substantive terms of the language itself.

Helena Silverstein, Professor, Lafayette College of Government and law, 1996, Unleashing Rights: law, meaning and the animal rights movement, p. 238

AT: “CLS Kritik of Rights” – Animal Rights Solve the K

Helena Silverstein, Professor, Lafayette College of Government and law, 1996, Unleashing Rights: law, meaning and the animal rights movement, p. 76-7

Of course, it is impossible to say at this early stage whether the infusion of these alternatives values will alter the language of rights in the long run or result in the extension of rights to animals. Nevertheless, five points can b e made. First, the animal rights movement provides evidence to counter the claim of critics who argue that rights language is inherently individualistic and cannot be made compatible with values of responsibility and community. We must at least admit that the potential exists to cultivate alternative values upon which rights can be founded. In this way, the animal rights experience supports the work of some scholars who have sought to advance a “collective” understanding of rights.

Second, this potential for countering the individualism of rights demonstrates that extending rights to animals does not necessarily undermine the power and meaning of the language. On first glance, it might appear that such an extension would rob rights of their meaning. But upon reflection we see the possibility for reinvigorating the language. Third, the very fact that advocates have attempted to extend rights to animals has helped highlight these alternative values. Since most animals do not have the same intellectual and rational abilities as humans, philosophers and activists have had to look for other common characteristics that unite humans with animals. This has resulted in the emphasis on sentience, relationship, and responsibility for beings who cannot stand up for themselves. In turn, such a focus moves us away form a human-centric view of community to a wider, more inclusive understanding of the collectivity.

Helena Silverstein, Professor, Lafayette College of Government and law, 1996, Unleashing Rights: law, meaning and the animal rights movement, p. 120-1

One way that the meaning of rights can be manipulated is to alter the underlying liberal foundations upon which the language is based. While it is true that rights language is founded upon liberalism, it is also true that liberalism contains within it various competing ideals. On the one hand, liberalism stresses Lockean individualism, autonomy, and self-interest. On the other hand, various proponents of liberalism emphasize community, responsibility, and concern for the common good. Rights, likewise, can be infused with these alternative, and often conflictual, ideals. And, while it is true that American culture’s Lockean tradition with its individualistic emphasis generally prevails, this prevalence is neither absolute nor incontrovertible. Using rights in a way that emphasizes the values of responsibility, relationship, and community can challenge the prevailing Lockean liberalism and thereby confront the ideology of the status quo.

This is what the animal rights movement has sought to do in reconstructing the meaning of rights. They have employed the indeterminate, flexible language of the status quo and attempted to reconstruct this language in ways that fit within the context of nonhumans. This reconstruction has involved a move away from individualism and toward relationship, responsibility, and community. Moreover, this reconstruction has proceeded in a strategic and cautious manner. Activists can and do think of rights in both critical and strategic terms. Although we must recognize that some activists may be naively misled by a strong faith in rights, at least a significant portion of activists have taken the disadvantages of invoking rights into consideration. Furthermore, many activists maintain a strategic understanding of rights, weighing the political benefits and costs of rights deployment in the context of particular movement struggles.

All of this suggests that rights can be reconstituted and infused with alternative notions and values. Rights need not be discarded, as some critics recommend. A thoughtful, critical, and strategic awareness of rights language provides the opportunity to challenge existing attitudes and power structures. Indeed, infusing rights with the values of community and responsibility provides an opportunity to challenge and refine the meaning of the language. Certainly, there is no guarantee that such challenges will be successful, nor is change likely to be achieved quickly. Yet, when we consider the history of rights, the persuasiveness of the language, and the available alternatives, it seems untenable to discard such an important and useful tool.