Addressing the Will Theory Challenge to Animal Rights

Abstract

Participants in the long-standing interest/will theory debate, long in disagreement over the function of rights, are united on this point: while the interest theory can accommodate animals, the will theory cannot. Recent scholarship in animal political theory agrees, accounting for animal rights via the interest theory alone. This article offers the first sustained challenge to this position by exploring two interpretations of the will theory. It concludes that only a more moderate interpretation of what it takes to be a competent decision-maker allows us to interpret the will theory in a way that both retains its distinctiveness and conforms to current, mainstream rights discourse. Through a discussion of how we might regard at least certain animals, in certain contexts, as being capable of giving or withholding their consent, the article argues that they should no longer be categorically held as outside the domain of will theory rights-holders.