Animal Rights Without Liberation: Applied Ethics and Human Obligations is a 2012 book by the British political theorist Alasdair Cochrane, in which it is argued that animal rights philosophy can be decoupled from animal liberation philosophy by the adoption of the interest-based rights approach. Cochrane, arguing that there is no reason that (nonhuman) animals should be excluded from justice, adopts Joseph Raz's account of interest rights and extends it to include animals. He argues that sentient animals possess a right not to be made to suffer and a right not to be killed, but not a right to freedom. The book's chapters apply Cochrane's account to a number of interactions between humans and animals; first animal experimentation, then animal agriculture, the genetic engineering of animals, the use of animals in entertainment and sport, the relationship of animals to environmental practices and the use of animals in cultural practices.
The book is based upon Cochrane's doctoral thesis, which was completed at the London School of Economics, and builds upon subjects he had discussed in previous publications, including his first book. An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory. It was published by Columbia University Press as the second book in their series Critical Perspectives on Animals, edited by Gary Francione and Gary Steiner. Critics from a variety of backgrounds responded positively to the book, focussing on how Cochrane had found a middle ground between traditional animal rights philosophy and utilitarianism.
Background Animal Rights Without Liberation is based upon Cochrane's doctoral thesis, completed at the London School of Economics (LSE) under the supervision of Cécile Fabre, with Paul Kelly acting as an advisor. The thesis was examined by Anne Phillips and Albert Weale, the former of whom suggested the title which was used for the book. The arguments in the book differ from the arguments in the thesis, however, and in preparing the manuscript for publication, Cochrane drew upon the advice of a number of academics, especially Robert Garner.
In addition to presenting ideas used in the book at meetings of the Political Theory Group at LSE, Cochrane published an article entitled "Animal interests and animal experiments: An interest-based approach" in the journal Res Publica in 2006. This article won the journal's second annual Postgraduate Essay Prize, and formed the basis of the third chapter of Animal Rights Without Liberation. Cochrane continued to work on questions of animal rights after the completion of his doctorate, publishing articles on the subject in Utilitas and Political Studies in 2009, the latter of which provoked responses from Garner in 2011 and the philosopher John Hadley in 2013. Cochrane published his first book, An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory, through Palgrave Macmillan in 2010, after having moved to the Department of Politics at Sheffield University.
Animal Rights Without Liberation was published by Columbia University Press, as part of the series Critical Perspectives on Animals: Theory, Culture, Science, and Law. The series, edited by the legal scholar Gary Francione and the philosopher Gary Steiner, aims to give direction to the emerging interdisciplinary research in animal studies. Animal Rights Without Liberation was the second book published as a part of the series, after Francione and Garner's 2010 The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation? It was published in August 2012 in a variety of formats.
The interest-based rights approach
Cochrane's "interest-based rights approach" is the method utilised in the book to examine various ways in which animals are used by humans. Rights set limits on what can be done, even in the pursuit of aggregative well-being. The animal rights outlined by philosopher Tom Regan are based on the "inherent value" of individual animals (see intrinsic value). For Cochrane and other critics, this basis can seem "mysterious". Instead, Cochrane suggests that rights should be grounded in interests, and follows legal philosopher Joseph Raz's formulation that
'X has a right' if and only if X can have rights and, other things being equal, an aspect of X's well-being (his interest) is a sufficient reason for holding some other person(s) to be under a duty.
Cochrane draws out several aspects of this account, which serves as the basis of the analysis in Animal Rights Without Liberation. First, interests must be "sufficient to give grounds for holding another to be under a duty". Judging this entails considering the strength of an interest as well as "all other considerations"; so, for example, while individuals may have a very strong interest in free expression, but, "all things considered", this need not protect slander. The greater interest of the victim of slander can outweigh the interest in free expression, and so context is important. This is the difference between prima facie rights and concrete rights. The former exist on an abstract level outside of particular circumstances. Prima facie rights can translate into concrete rights when considered in particular situations but do not always, as the free expression example illustrates. The account is for moral rights, and Cochrane's normative claims are intended to form part of a "democratic underlaboring", informing and persuading political communities.
The strength of an interest is determined by a consideration of the value of something to an individual (though this is not understood purely subjectively) and the relationship between the individual at this time and the individual when he or she has the interest satisfied (see personal identity). Cochrane argues that those beings who lack personhood, including many nonhuman animals and some humans, do not have an interest in liberty or not being used by others, and so have no prima facie right to freedom. They do, however, possess significant interests in not being made to suffer and in not being killed, and so have a prima facie right not to be made to suffer and a prima facie right not to be killed.
Synopsis
Methodology Animal Rights Without Liberation seeks to decouple animal rights from animal liberation. For Cochrane, of central importance is the question of sentience, understood as "the capacity for phenomenal consciousness". No position is taken on precisely how many animals are sentient, but, Cochrane argues, it is clear that at least some nonhuman animals are. Sentience alone does not afford moral status, but sentience implies the capacity for well-being; sentient beings have lives that can go better or worse for them. Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant argued that personhood is required for moral value, but Cochrane observes that there may be nonhuman animals who could be considered persons. In any case, it is argued that there are good reasons not to agree with Kant, and Cochrane concludes that there is no reason to limit the possession of moral status to humans. What needs to be considered is not whether anything is owed to animals, but what is owed to them. Following a paper on animal rights by political philosopher Joel Feinberg, Cochrane suggests that animals possess rights on account of their interests. Cochrane then deals with four possible objections. Interest rights are defended against the claim that moral agency is a prerequisite of rights-possession, against the demand that rights be derived from social relations, against the suggestion, from R. G. Frey, that animals do not possess interests, and against the idea that inanimate entities and plants may possess interests.
At this point, Cochrane has completed the first two steps introducing his interest-based rights approach; the third is outlining the approach itself as the appropriate means of understanding obligations to animals in political communities. Utilitarianism, as advocated by Peter Singer, is rejected because of its failure to take individuals seriously enough; Cochrane desires an account which takes well-being seriously but is not purely aggregative. This, he suggests, is one based on interest rights. After explicating the details of his interest-based rights approach, Cochrane defends it against the charge that it would result in an unworkably large number of rights, and that rights approaches are too rationalistic.
Application
Having outlined his methodological approach, Cochrane goes on to apply his theory to a number of ways that animals are used by society. First, Cochrane considers animal experimentation, arguing that "animal experiments that result in pain or death are morally illegitimate, while painless experiments in which the animal does not die are permissible, all else being equal." Cochrane discusses how to judge the strength of an interest, and then considers the strength of animals' interests in not being subjected to painful experimentation. He considers three reasons the interest may not be sufficient to ground a right, and rejects them all; that the benefits of animal testing outweigh the suffering, that humans owe more to members of their own species than to members of others (see speciesism) and that human lives are objectively more valuable than the lives of other animals. Cochrane concludes that animals have a concrete right to not be subjected to painful experiments. He next considers animals' interests in not being killed, concluding that they "have an interest in continued life so that they may have more pleasant experiences and greater overall well-being in their lives", but that this interest is weaker than the corresponding interest possessed by human persons. If deadly experimentation on nonhuman non-persons is permitted, then consistency demands that it also be permitted on human non-persons, such as babies or individuals with certain cognitive disabilities. Like most others, Cochrane is unwilling to allow this possibility, and so claims that animals have a right not to be used in deadly experiments. However, he argues that animals have neither an interest in negative or positive freedom, and, like animals, human non-persons also lack this interest; therefore, neither have a prima facie right not to be used, provided said use respects the rights they do possess.