Response To Regan's Argument

Singer’s and Regan’s methods that they feel are the best in accomplishing moral considerability. I will first begin with Singer’s utilitarian approach and then move on to discuss Regan’s rights approach. Once I have fully described both arguments I will then discuss how the approaches are similar and different. I will then argue that Regan has the stronger approach in securing animal moral considerability through his more realistic

with both Tom Regan’s and Carl Cohen’s conceptions of the status of animals in society, but, overall, Regan’s is more consistent and applicable to all situations. Cohen also establishes a double standard regarding the definition of a “moral agent,” consequently weakening his argument for the use of biomedical testing on animals. Although I disagree with many of Regan’s ideas about the value of animals, I will not address these points in this paper. I will instead argue for Regan’s position and, in

role, however, many realist believe that it was the US especially President Regan’s policies (Regan Doctrine) which concluded the Cold War contest with victory for the west. Kegley believes that by engaging Moscow in an arm race, the Soviet Union was dragged into a competition which exhausted their already fragile economy leading them initially into retrenchment and ultimately out of the contest. (13) Peterson notes the argument of Patrick Glynn that Gorbachev’s radical reforms of perestroika and glasnost

The subject matter at hand, is whether animals should have rights or not? Following two opposing views by Tom Regan and Carl Cohen. However, before getting into more detail on their positions, what exactly is animal rights? As simple as it may seem, animal rights is exactly defined by its own term. Animal rights is simply moral privileges that should be considered for all non-human animals due to the fact that it is typically argued that these non-human animals encompass some form of emotional pain

essay I will outline and defend the argument for complete abolition of the use of animals in biomedical research. I will ultimately agree with Tom Regan’s claim that “the fundamental wrong is the system that allows us to view animals as our resources.” I will describe DeGrazia’s and Carruthers’ important objections to Regan’s claim as well as Regan and Singer’s responses. I will show that none of the objections overcomes Regan’s central argument. 1) Regan’s Argument: Regan states that the use of animals

Rights-based theory matches my moral argument, as I am against continuing to support the city zoo. The issue lies with animals being confined in zoos for conservation and entertainment purposes and are not being able to live their lives in a way that God created for them. Meaning, animals are not enjoying their natural habitat, building their hunting skills, and living healthier lives. Which brings me to my response on the issue, animals should no longer be confined in zoos for entertainment purposes

our feet. While it is a justifiable point on a general scale, the subtle irony of Kant’s view establishing that the scope of human rights being narrowed that way because we are rational beings, is an argument that is, itself, rationally flawed. Regan does not discredit the value of Kant’s argument, he rather extends it to a slightly broader scope by redefining what exactly it is that gives humans their worth. Fundamentally, the two schools of thought are very similar. The difference as argued by

INTRODUCTION: By facilitating the growth of evil within William Shakespeare’s King Lear, it is evident that the tragedy’s protagonist, King Lear can be held accountable for his own victimization and ultimate downfall. The most notable aspects of this self-induced victimization include Lear’s own lack of practical wisdom and divergence from the natural order, combined with the neglect of kingship, that enables Lear as a tragic hero to create the conceptual framework in which the ulterior motives of

the ‘war on terror’, weapons of mass destruction and their subsequent responses. Furthermore, these topics of international security and threats to the global community are highly contentious and are up for much debate as revealed in the exchange between Noam Chomsky and Sam. Through analyzing their discussion surrounding these issues this paper will argue that Noam Chomsky won the debate. He presented a highly persuasive argument which reveals that the relevance to terrorism,

can determine what shaped America's foreign policy. Some discovered changes in the philosophy when each conflict arose, yet it seems to shift every time a new president comes along. While historians focus on how each event has prompted a specific response from the president;