Animal rights activists are as diverse a group as Democrats or Republicans. Some don’t even self-identify as “ARAs”, while others are very vocal and even militant. Their beliefs are not always consistent: some find pet ownership or guardianship a travesty, others think only “red” meat is inhumane, and you’ll easily find ARAs who will rescue a dog or cat but not think twice about wearing fur or leather.

In a lot of ways, Tom Regan’s book Empty Cages is an animal rights activist’s “membership guide” for new activists, aiding the unknowing in constructing arguments and reasons for protecting the rights of the sentient beings around us. For long-time ARAs, however, there may be little to gain.

Regan begins by identifying the qualities of ARAs, and thankfully does not overgeneralize but  describes the whole range of approaches and beliefs. In order to aid self-identification, perhaps for new activists, he explains three reasons a person becomes an activist for animals:

• A DaVincian has a natural empathy towards animals from early childhood
• A Damascan has a sudden revelation of animal suffering at some point in his or her life, before which animal rights was not important, after which animal rights are critical
• A Muddler learns and experiences smaller revelations over a longer period of time, eventually reaching the same conclusions about animal rights and their primacy that DaVincians always knew and Damascans realize in an instant

While of little use to seasoned animal rights activists, these three archetypes may help a wavering potential-activist reach a conclusion (”I’m a Damascan!“) and join the discussions to follow.

The majority of the book follows, and includes a (novel?) argument for the necessity of rights for animals and a wide-ranging but cursory examination of current issues relevant to ARAs. We’ll quickly look at Regan’s argument for the necessity of animal rights below.

In a pragmatic reduction of the metaphysical differences between humans and other animals, Regan explains that animals with brains, nervous systems, and the like have self-interest, that is, strive to avoid suffering, “whether anyone cares about this or not.” That is to say, in an Ockham’s razor-wielding fashion, many animals are aware of the world, have an interest in what happens to their own self in this world, whether anyone cares about this or not. “We” are all “subjects-of-a-life” (in a “Sartre-ing” coinage), morally equal and the same, with no species higher or lower than another.

This is why, in his formulation, humans and most animals have rights, but not, say, sticks and stones, or plants.

Unfortunately, due to the limitations of his pragmatism and oversimplification, he omits the same respect towards insects and spiders, reptiles, amphibians, and even fish. Really, only mammals and birds apply, at least in Empty Cages. Regan is apologetic about such a limitation, but finds it necessary in order to keep his arguments easy to digest, perhaps for fledgling activists.

In all, Empty Cages is a laudable tidying-up and packaging of the hairy issues surrounding and penetrating animal rights activism. It is recommended for newcomers and the unsure, but the “real issues” facing animals today and the real psychological barriers present in our society need a stronger social critique, inclusion of the “edge cases”, and a guiding philosophy with, frankly, a little more meat.