Tom Regan How To Worry About Endangered Species Summary

The starting point of this essay is to establish and lay out an animal rights claim. The point here is not to solely list which specific rights animals have, as that goes beyond the scope of this essay, but to discuss why animals do in fact have a claim to rights, and what this means for humans. The need to understand the intrinsic, or inherent value of animals allows us to see the base from which their claim to rights is derived. Inherent value refers to the idea that animals are valuable in themselves, not in what they provide us. Tom Regan, an animal ethicist, sets out the moral grounding from which we can

Since earth was created, there has been a natural phenomenon of species across the globe appearing and disappearing. However, in the past century, many species of animals have been disappearing at an alarming rate. Mainly, this rapidly occurring issue is caused by humans. Humans that contribute to the harmful actions that cause side effects such a pollution, deforestation, habitat loss and poaching. The natural rate of extinction pales in comparison to the extinction rate caused by all of these. According to the World Wildlife Fund, the current rate of extinction is 11,000 times greater than the natural extinction rate. Several different efforts have been made in order to stop or slow down the extinction of earth’s species. The Endangered Species Act is possibly the most successful example of these efforts. It’s main purpose is to get a commitment from the American people that they will work hand in hand to help save species that are at risk of becoming extinct and never returning. This act was put in place in 1973 and since then, no other law about the disappearance of wildlife has been quite as accomplished. Many different species that are protected under this law are either fully recovered or on their way to becoming safer. Laws like these are helping many different creatures left and right, however, at the alarming rate that they are disappearing, something else needs to be done. What people don’t seem to realize is that we depend on many of the animals that we are

In his essay Against the Moral Standing of Animals, Peter Carruthers argues that animals have no moral standing and therefore no rights, unlike all humans.

“Speciesism and the Idea of Equality” by Bonnie Steinbock is a rebuttal to Peter Singer’s “Speciesism and the Idea of Equality”. The issue presented is should animal rights be considered on the same par as human rights? The conclusion is no, animal rights shouldn’t be on the same standing as human rights. There are several reasons that support this conclusion. The first reason is that humans have abilities that animals don’t have. Steinbock states, “It is not arbitrary or smug, I think, to maintain that human beings have a different moral status from members of other species because of certain capacities which are characteristic of being human” (225). There are three sub points within this argument that help her case. They include: human

A highly popularized and debated topic in our modern society is the promotion of animal equality or animal rights. Many people, philosophers included, have a wide range of opinions on this topic. Two of the philosophers studied in class who discussed animal rights were Peter Singer and Carl Cohen. Singer, who has the more extreme view on animal rights, believes that all animals are equal and that the limit of sentience is the only defensible boundary of concern for the interest of others (Singer, 171). While Cohen, who’s view is more moderate than that of Singer’s, believes that animals do not have rights, stating that to have rights one must contain the ability for free moral judgment. Though, he does believe that we as

A quick comparison to Vicki Hearne’s “What’s Wrong with Animal Rights?” to Peter Singer’s “Speciesism and Moral Status”, might indicate Hearne’s argument is stronger due to her strategic and effective use of emotional appeals (i.e. pathos). These appeals allow Hearne to connect quickly and easily with her audience. Hearne is also quite clever in terms of stressing her occupation as an animal trainer. However, after a swift comparison of the two articles, it is evident that Singer’s “Speciesism and Moral Status” offers readers a stronger and more valid argument. Both Singer and Hearne are arguing their position on animal rights and the extent of human involvement. Since Hearne’s article is primarily based on her attempt to persuade her

The Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights (1791) included in the Constitution of the Unites States (US) declares that “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Later, President Roosevelt during his campaign address of October 13, 1932, certainly stated that the “government is responsible for its citizens ' welfare.” Recently, Rabbi Greg Harris in a recent lecture at the National Defense University declared that “the majorities should protect the rights of minorities.” Based on these assertions, it is possible to infer that historically, since the birth of

Philosopher Tom Regan also supports my argument that animals have rights similar to those of humans. Regan argues that the system as a whole needs to change in order for animals rights to be achieved. The reason this system needs to change is because we view animals as a resource and something that is for our taking (Regan, 1). Many of us, myself included, are guilty of having this attitude. I eat meat at almost every meal and when I’m eating it I’m not thinking about the animal's life that was taken, I’m thinking about how good it tastes. The only way we can change this attitude Regan says is “People must change their beliefs before they change their habits.” (Regan, 1). One theory that Regan has to change this attitude that so many of us

In “The Case for Animal Rights,” Regan states that instead of viewing animals as existing solely for human disposal, or as having value only because they retain the same feelings of pain and satisfaction humans do, we should consider animals as

The article “Animals, Predators, the Right to Life, and the Duty to Save Lives” was written by Aaron Simmons. Simmons has a phD in Animal Sciences, and also has a Doctorate degree in Philosophy. He has won many awards and grants, including the award for featured student in the field: Animal Sciences. He also has multiple years of academic teaching and researching experience. In his article he uses his experience to examine this, “does an animal's right to life also entail that we have a duty to assist animals in preserving their lives when they are endangered” (Simmons 14). Simmons examines this idea of animals right to life, equal to the idea of human rights. Like humans right to life, we have a duty to refrain

Countless philosophers have improved their arguments against the view of animal rights; should animals even have full or equal moral rights. Stating that: (1) animals don't think, (2) animals are not really conscious, (3) animals were put on Earth to serve human beings, and (4) animals are not a member of the "moral community" (Ethics-Animal ethics: Animal rights, BBC). I will examine one of those arguments, in particular, an argument put forth by Mary Anne Warren, her argument lies with the moral standing of animals. According to Warren, some non-human animals have rights, but their rights are not as strong as the rights of humans (Warren, p. 114). Human posses’ rights in the strongest, fullest sense, because of self-awareness, whereas non-human animals may have some "weak" rights, which may or may not include a weak right to life.

In Stanley Benn’s “Egalitarianism and Equal Consideration of Interests”, it is explained that animals and human imbeciles are distinguished not because of fundamental inequality, but solely on the basis that the two subjects are of different species. In regard to animals’ moral rights and the infringement of those rights due to the practice of speciesism, Singer employs a utilitarian style of argument to defend animals’ moral rights; in short, the interests of each being which is involved should be taken into consideration and said interests should be given the same weight as that of another being. Speciesism is morally wrong because it attempts to assign undeserved weight to the interests of beings of separate species, solely based off the difference of species. Naturally, or rather unnaturally, human beings have always awarded themselves the utmost importance due to the idea of human dignity, as in humans occupy the central spot within any earthly ranking. Logically, Singer argues that the practice of speciesism is wrong because the conditions in which it exists are synonymous to the conditions which facilitate racism and sexism, before they had been recognized as

Since the beginning of life itself, some species have lived and prospered while other species have gone extinct never to be seen again by mankind. Because of this, some would claim that extinction is natural and not significantly problematic to the world that we live in. Others, however, understand that due to climate change, habitat loss, and poaching, more and more species are becoming endangered which leads to a chain reaction that can be devastating to ecosystems. Species such as the Chinook salmon, gorillas, tropical sharks, and polar bears are all directly affected by climate change, species such as northern spotted owls, Sumatran tigers, and lemurs are greatly harmed due to habitat loss, and species such as the sea turtle, Javan rhinoceros, African elephant, and the Red-Fronted Macaw are all affected by poaching driving them all closer and closer to becoming extinct.

In regards to animals, the issue of rights and whether they exist becomes a touchy subject. In the essay, “Nonhuman Animal Rights: Sorely Neglected,” author Tom Regan asserts that animals have rights based upon inherent value of experiencing subjects of a life. Regan’s argument will first be expressed, later explained, and evaluated in further detail. Lastly, that fact that Regan thinks rights are harbored under the circumstance of being an experiencing subject of a life will also be discussed in terms of the incapacitated, etc.

Non-human animals are given rights only because of their interactions with human beings. Without involvement with humans, animals do not deserve rights. It is through this interaction with humans that animals are even given moral consideration. We do not give rights to a rock simply because it is a creation of Mother Nature, similarly non-human animals do not have rights unless it is in regards to humans. As pointed out by Jan Narveson "morality is a sort of agreement among rational, independent, self-interested persons who have something to gain from entering into such an agreement" (192). In order to have the ability to obtain rights one must be consciously able to enter into an agreement, non-human animals are