Join Amazon Prime and ship Two-Day for free and Overnight for $3.99. Already a member? Sign in.

 

or
Sign in to turn on 1-Click ordering.
 
 
More Buying Choices
30 used & new from $3.75

Have one to sell? Sell yours here
 
   
Putting Humans First: Why We Are Nature's Favorite (Studies in Social, Political, and Legal Philosophy)
 
See larger image
 
Tell the Publisher!
I’d like to read this book on Kindle

Don’t have a Kindle? Get yours here.
 
  

Putting Humans First: Why We Are Nature's Favorite (Studies in Social, Political, and Legal Philosophy) (Hardcover)

by Tibor R. Machan (Author)
2.8 out of 5 stars See all reviews (6 customer reviews)

List Price: $19.95
Price: $19.95 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. Details
In Stock.
Ships from and sold by Amazon.com. Gift-wrap available.

Only 2 left in stock--order soon (more on the way).

Want it delivered Monday, July 13? Choose One-Day Shipping at checkout. Details
15 new from $12.34 15 used from $3.75

Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought

Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist

Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist

by Tara Smith
4.0 out of 5 stars (4)  $25.19
The Austrian Theory of the Trade Cycle and Other Essays

The Austrian Theory of the Trade Cycle and Other Essays

by Ludwig von Mises
4.4 out of 5 stars (11)  $9.95
Explore similar items

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly
This cranky manifesto opposes the excesses of animal-rights ideologues with an equally doctrinaire libertarianism. Countering animal-rights stalwarts like Tom Regan and Peter Singer, philosophy professor Machan contends that, as the only beings with the capacity for moral choice, only humans can have rights; "wondrous humanity" should therefore stop worrying about "speciesism" and enjoy guilt-free dominion. Machan scores some points on the concept of animal rights (what framework, he wonders, can encompass the rights of both zebras and the lions who feed on them?), but the link to his laissez-faire politics is murky, and his "private property rights approach to managing environmental problems" seems highly inadequate. Shrugging that he is "not sure" about anti-cruelty laws, he hardly mentions industrial livestock rearing or the other institutionalized abuses of animals that have fueled the animal-rights movement. Larger problems like pollution and ecological degradation are a "tragedy of the commons" best handled by privatization of the public realm and perhaps lots of litigation; private landowners, he assumes, will be faithful stewards of their earth, while polluters will answer in court to those whose property or bodies have been damaged by them. Since Machan doesn’t explain how to privatize the upper atmosphere, he allows that there may be a problem with ozone depletion, but he’s satisfied to wait for more research. In Machan’s exuberant call for individuals to do as they please with their animals, their land and their SUVs, the rights of property seem to overshadow those of humans, let alone animals.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Review
"In Putting Humans First, Machan offers an insightful, philosophic, and practical assessment of animal rights and environmental movements. Machan reveals how these philosophies would willingly sacrifice human freedoms by denying basic truths about both man and nature. He shows us that stewardship would be better served by celebrating and employing - rather than vilifying - mankind's creative and moral nature." - Angela Logomasini, director of risk and environmental policy, Competitive Enterprise Institute"

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

  • Hardcover: 160 pages
  • Publisher: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. (March 25, 2004)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 074253345X
  • ISBN-13: 978-0742533455
  • Product Dimensions: 8.6 x 5.7 x 0.7 inches
  • Shipping Weight: 13 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
  • Average Customer Review: 2.8 out of 5 stars See all reviews (6 customer reviews)
  • Amazon.com Sales Rank: #762,114 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Tag this product

 (What's this?)
Think of a tag as a keyword or label you consider is strongly related to this product.
Tags will help all customers organize and find favorite items.
Your tags: Add your first tag
 
Help others find this product — tag it for Amazon search
No one has tagged this product for Amazon search yet. Why not be the first to suggest a search for which it should appear?

Sell a Digital Version of This Book in the Kindle Store

If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store. Learn more

 

Customer Reviews

6 Reviews
5 star:
 (2)
4 star:
 (1)
3 star:    (0)
2 star:    (0)
1 star:
 (3)
 
 
 
 
 
Average Customer Review
2.8 out of 5 stars (6 customer reviews)
 
 
 
 
Share your thoughts with other customers:
Most Helpful Customer Reviews

 
20 of 33 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars Response to Nobis' Review by author, August 29, 2004
By T. R Machan (Silverado, CA USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
Revisiting the Animal Rights/Liberation Debate

I say "revisiting" because I have addressed the topic in several places quite a few times and want merely to respond to a rather dismissive footnote reference to my treatment of it by Nathan Nobis. I am not going to address Nobis' discussion in full. (He and I have gone round and round about all this via email.)

In a footnote Nobis says "Tibor Machan claims...that humans' use of animals is permissible because doing so makes `the best use of nature of our success in living our lives'." He then adds "[Machan] also notes that we also might benefit from using (marginal) humans, but does not explain why that would be wrong. He merely states that `as far as infants or the significantly impaired among human beings are concerned, they cannot be the basis for a general account of human morality, of what rights human beings have. Borderline cases matter in making difficult decisions but not in forging a general theory.' That might be true, but these remarks provide no reason to think that marginal humans have rights and animals don't, so Machan's views remain incomplete and undefended" (p. 59).

If you only read one paper by someone concerning a topic on which the author has written several more basic papers, no wonder you will conclude that the author's views "remain incomplete." However, I have written a now widely reprinted paper, "Do Animals Have Rights?" (available on the Internet via Google) which lays the foundation for just the point I make in the later paper Nobis references. And since I have written at least two full length books on natural rights theory, the probability of my having given the matter a reasonably complete treatment is considerable. However, for those unfamiliar with the work who wish, nonetheless, to comment on my views, there will be a problem since much of what I discuss about animal rights/liberation rests on these prior works.

More recently, I have also produced this little book, mainly for the general reader, in which I explain why nonhuman animals are not the sort of beings to which the sort of rights human beings have and Regan and others wish to defend can reasonably be ascribed. Basically, the idea is that Lockean rights that, as it were, carve out what Robert Nozick called our "moral space," concern the kind of beings that are moral agents. Moral patients-that is, beings vis-à-vis one may do something wrong-need not be rights possessors. Consider a Rembrandt painting that would be ordinarily morally vicious to destroy. Yet, despite being a sort of moral patient, the painting has no rights. Only beings that are capable of making fundamental, free choices that may be morally evaluated as right or wrong, can be rights possessors of the sort at issue in the discussion.

"Rights" are a political concept based on the moral nature of human beings who possess them and require a sphere of personal authority, sovereignty, to make morally significant choices. Our moral nature consists of our capacity-qua human beings, rational and volitional animals-to make free, morally significant choices.

There are cases, of course, of impaired human beings, infants and so forth whose rights need to be explained in light of their special situation. As I indicated in the passage Nobis quotes from my last paper on the topic--and as I discuss at length in my book, which Nobis seems not really to have read in full--such exceptional instances do not defeat the general case for human rights anymore than the existence of broken chairs would defeat the general case of chairs being the sort of objects suitable for sitting on them. The existence of malfunctioning-or infant-instances of any kind of thing do not defeat the general principles characterizing their actions and the conditions of their behavior. So, yes, children have rights, as do people in a coma, at least up to the point that they remain properly classified as human beings (which could change).

Putting the matter more simply, nonhuman animals aren't subject to moral considerations-guilt, regret, forgiveness, punishment, obligation, and so forth, just as they aren't subject to legal considerations-subjects of lawsuits, owed due process, etc. Sure, one can stretch normal normative language-as is done so effectively in Disney and other animated movies-but that is poetic license, not accurate discourse about morality and politics.

None of this addresses the topic of how animals should be treated by human beings except that whatever will be the right answer to that will not rest on considerations of their rights, which do not exist. But let me just make a final point which I discuss at length in my recent book, namely, that it is quite OK for people to hurt animals as they use them for their own good, if that is the best way to achieve that good. This is so with human beings hurting themselves-when they go to the dentist, have a painful operation, undertake painful exercise or go about seeking various worthy goals that can only be achieved at the expense of some, often terrible, pain. Wanton self-infliction of pain-masochism, in short-is morally wrong, and so would be-as all parents seem to tell their children without benefit of animal rights advocates-wanton cruelty to nonhuman animals. The justification for this, however, is not the topic here.

Comment Comment | Permalink | Was this review helpful to you? Yes No (Report this)



 
22 of 38 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars a serious disappointment from a not very serious philosopher, July 16, 2004
Writings criticizing our treatment of non-human animals - in agribusiness, the fashion industry and in research labs - are being published at an astounding rate. Since defenses of the status quo regarding animal use have not been as forthcoming, Machan's book is a welcome, but disappointing, contribution to the debates.

Machan argues that the idea of animal rights is "a fiction" and "a trick." This is because a being has rights - it is wrong to harm it for pleasure or even serious benefits - only if it has a "moral nature," i.e., a "capacity" to see the difference between right and wrong and choose accordingly (pp. xv, 10). Machan says humans are of that "kind" and animals are not and so concludes that humans have rights and animals have none.

But these arguments are imprecise: true, only humans have this capacity, but only some humans, not all. Thus, his theory of rights seems to provide no protection for vulnerable humans who are not moral agents and so lack the moral nature he describes.

Machan disagrees: he argues that, contrary to appearances, human babies and severely mentally challenged individuals do not "lack moral agency altogether" (p. 16) and thus they have rights on his theory. To see this, however, he says that we must consider them as they would exist "normally, not abnormally" and focus on the "healthy cases, not the special or exceptional ones" (p. 16; cf. pp. 38, 40). Apparently, Machan thinks that since "normal" human beings are moral agents, abnormal humans are moral agents as well. But this inference is clearly illegitimate: while exceptional humans' characteristics include some properties they share with normal humans (e.g., being biologically human), it is not true that, in general, all features of normal beings are shared by abnormal beings: e.g., quadriplegics and cancer patients are in their unfortunate conditions even though normal, healthy humans - whom they share much with - are not.

So, in the absence of arguments to the contrary, the fact that normal humans are moral agents does not make abnormal humans moral agents. Thus, they do not meet Machan's necessary condition for rights; his defense of the rights of vulnerable humans fails and thereby so does his argument that animals have no moral rights. His criticism of one implausible theory of rights - that if someone merely has an interest in something, then he or she has a right to that thing - does little to defend his position either.

Machan's other main argument against animal rights is surprising. He claims that if animals have the right to not be harmed at the hands of moral agents, then they also have that right against "politically incorrect" animals who, as he repeatedly observes throughout the book, are not moral agents (p. 12). He argues that since they don't have that latter right (i.e., animals don't have rights against other animals), they don't have the former right (i.e., they have no rights against us). Basically he suggests that - when it suits our pleasure - it is morally permissible for us to act like some animals and kill other animals. Thankfully Machan does not endorse our imitating some animals by our eating our offspring (or our excrement), but since chickens, pigs, cows, rats, mice, and most primates are primarily vegetarian, they would surely welcome our imitation in that regard.

One important, surprising and encouraging remark might help resolve this ambivalence: Machan suggests that one might be "morally remiss" for not breaking the law to "invade" a neighbor's private property to rescue a cat who was being tortured by the neighbor, the cat's owner (p. 22). If this is Machan's true view, then he clearly does not believe that humans should always come first and the Animal and Earth Liberation Fronts, as well as more moderate animal and environmental advocates, have found an ally in a most surprising place.

Comment Comment | Permalink | Was this review helpful to you? Yes No (Report this)



 
5 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars On the right track, January 22, 2007
There are many smart approaches to defending human rights as superior to animal "rights" and Tibor Machan is on the right track with this book. Read it for yourself - don't listen to the fools writing here who dismiss him as "not a serious philosopher" - that's just a cowardly and intellectually wimpy way to attack someone's work. The other negative reviews are even more intellectually vacant. Hey, you know what? Tibor Machan is smarter than James Rachels! The tests are in and in every metric, Machan surpasses Rachels. It's really quite refreshing.
Comment Comment | Permalink | Was this review helpful to you? Yes No (Report this)


Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
 
 
Ad
 
Most Recent Customer Reviews

1.0 out of 5 stars No Clue
I recently had the displeasure of reading this book, which ranks as one of the most smug, self-serving, pseudointellectual diatribes I've ever come across. Read more
Published on April 19, 2006 by Nick Jans

1.0 out of 5 stars This has to be a joke!
This is a hideous display of human idiocy - there is no way that any thinking, reasoning adult could actually hold these views. Read more
Published on July 2, 2004 by laurahhoyt

5.0 out of 5 stars Finally a book in our own defense
This short but nifty book is a concise defense of human life, with a critique of the muddle of "animal rights" theory and a sharp examination of anti-human... Read more
Published on April 27, 2004

Only search this product's reviews



Customer Discussions

 Beta (What's this?)
New! See all customer communities, and bookmark your communities to keep track of them.
This product's forum (0 discussions)
  Discussion Replies Latest Post
  No discussions yet

Ask questions, Share opinions, Gain insight
Start a new discussion
Topic:
First post:
Prompts for sign-in
  [Cancel]


Active discussions in related forums
   


Product Information from the Amapedia Community

Beta (What's this?)


Look for Similar Items by Category


Look for Similar Items by Subject


Shop Tool Storage in Home Improvement

Shop tool storage in Home Improvement
Check out the huge selection of tool storage and organization products offered by Amazon.com.

See more in the Power & Hand Tools Store

 

Best Books of 2008

Best of 2008
Find our top 100 editors' picks as well as customers' favorites in dozens of categories in our Best Books of 2008 Store.
 

Buy Three Books, Get a Fourth Free

4-for-3 Books
Order any four eligible books under $10 and get the lowest-price book free in our 4-for-3 Books Store. See more details.
 

Best Books

Best of the Month
See our editors' picks and more of the best new books on our Best of the Month page.
 
Ad

 

Feedback

If you need help or have a question for Customer Service, contact us.
 Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
Is there any other feedback you would like to provide?

Your comments can help make our site better for everyone.


Where's My Stuff?

Shipping & Returns

Need Help?

Your Recent History

  (What's this?)
You have no recently viewed items or searches.

After viewing product detail pages or search results, look here to find an easy way to navigate back to pages you are interested in.

Look to the right column to find helpful suggestions for your shopping session.

Continue shopping: Top Sellers

Conditions of Use | Privacy Notice © 1996-2009, Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates