Bentham’s 1789 question – “Can they suffer?” – shifted focus from rationality to sentience. Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation (1975) applied preference utilitarianism: each being’s interests count equally, and speciesism (discrimination based on species) is as unjustifiable as racism. Singer does not assert absolute rights but argues that the immense suffering of factory farming far outweighs human pleasure from cheap meat. Welfare reforms (larger cages, stunning before slaughter) are welcomed but seen as incomplete because they do not challenge the logic of mass production.
Regan argues that all “subjects-of-a-life” (mammals over age one, likely many birds and cephalopods) have inherent value. That value cannot be traded off. Therefore, raising and killing animals for food, even humanely, violates their right to life and respect. Regan rejects welfare improvements as “sadder but wiser” – they make the public feel comfortable while the fundamental wrong (using animals as resources) continues. zoo bestiality xxx full
The friction occurs at the lever of "use." Bentham’s 1789 question – “Can they suffer
This tension is not a war; it is a conversation. Welfare reforms often lead to the public questioning the morality of use altogether—a concept known as the "window to abolition." Conversely, hardline rights rhetoric often alienates farmers and scientists, slowing down incremental welfare gains. This tension is not a war; it is a conversation