Nozick’s libertarian critique of Regan
Robert Nozick’s oft-quoted review of Tom Regan’s The Case for Animal Rights levels a range of challenges to Regan’s philosophy. Many commentators have focussed on Nozick’s putative defence of speciesism, but this has led to them overlooking other aspects of the critique. In this paper, I draw attention to two. First is Nozick’s criticism of Regan’s political theory, which is best understood relative to Nozick’s libertarianism. Nozick’s challenge invites the possibility of a libertarian account of animal rights – which is not as oxymoronic as it may first sound. Second is Nozick’s criticism of Regan’s axiological theory, which is best understood relative to Nozick’s own axiological inegalitarianism. While Nozick’s axiology has distasteful consequences, it should not be dismissed out-of-hand. Nozick’s challenges to Regan – and Nozick’s wider animal ethics – are rich and original, warranting attention from contemporary theorists for reasons beyond mere historical interest.
Funding
The Canadian Institute for Advanced Research
History
School
- Social Sciences and Humanities
Department
- International Relations, Politics and History
Published in
Between the Species: an online journal for the study of philosophy and animalsVolume
21Issue
1Pages
68 - 93Publisher
California Polytechnic State UniversityVersion
- VoR (Version of Record)
Rights holder
© Josh MilburnPublisher statement
This paper was accepted for publication in the journal Between the Species and the definitive published version is available at https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/bts/vol21/iss1/3Publication date
2018-04-30Copyright date
2018eISSN
1945-8487Publisher version
Language
- en