Tom Regan's The Case For Animal Rights

Is it ethical for animals to have the same rights as humans? During this paper I will present the views of both sides. I will try my best to give the reader a chance to come to there own unbiased conclusion. I will talk about the key areas of animal ethics. I will present the facts and reasoning behind the arguments over Animal cruelty, testing, hunting, and improper housing. My conclusion will hopefully bring us closer to answering many of the question surrounding “Animal Rights and Ethics”.

In Peter Singer’s article, All Animals are Equal, Singer claims that animals deserve the same equal rights and respect that the human lives get. His strongest argument is defined by all animals, human or non-human shall be defined as equal. Singer makes some very strong arguments within his article, but I feel some of his statements are humanist. As an animal lover and mother to two pets, I disagree that not all animals or living things endure the same amount. However, I do agree that animals do deserve the rights to live lives as animals should. This paper will analyze Singer’s argument in relation to the specific issue of animal equal rights. It will also include the counterarguments I have against his claims of his article.

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

Throughout history, humans have utilized nonhuman animals for the benefit of mankind. This tendency increased as civilization developed, and presently, necessitated by staggering population growth and technological progress, human use of animals has skyrocketed. We eat them, we breed them, we use them as test subjects. Some people have begun to question the ethics of it all, sparking a debate on animal treatment and whether or not they have rights. In a paper on the subject, Carl Cohen lays out his definition of rights, explains their relationship with obligations, and uses these ideas to present the argument that manifests clearly in his piece’s title, “Why Animals Have No Rights”. THESIS

In the article “Of Primates and Personhood: Will According Rights and “Dignity” to Nonhuman Organisms Halt Research” it was mentioned that “we should extend rights to a wide range of nonhuman animals. All creatures that can feel pain should have a basic moral status” (Yong). Anything with a beating heart has the ability to feel pain, so they should have someone or something protecting them from feeling unnecessary pain. The reason that it should not go to the extent of humans is because animals do not perform the civil duties that humans often do. This is why Hiasl, the chimpanzee, who had an owner fighting to get him granted legal citizenship lost his

When a cause is brought up and given light, it has a way of splitting people in how they react to it. And such has been true when it comes to granting new rights, because it’s brobdingnagian in our society that is always hungry for freedoms. We are split down the middle on whether, or not to consider animals, just like us, and thus deserve the rights we hold in our society today. On the other end, are people who don’t believe such rights should be given to animals. While the pro-arguments hold value, there is much more to see on the other end. As to why animals shouldn’t have a “Bill of Rights” like we as humans do. It’s shown in various different ways, even the most popular arguments held by the opposing side. Such as cows hurting the environment, zoo’s being inhumane, and pets. There are other factors as well to take into consideration such as food, psychology medicine, and even culture.

As we discover treatments for diseases such as rabies, feline leukemia, tetanus, anthrax, and much more, animals also bear the advantage of protection. In fact, humans share hundreds of diseases with animals. We also share similar organs allowing scientists to use animals as an essential model for the study of illnesses. Therefore, the work researchers perform sets a platform for an end result where both parties benefit. It can thus be concluded that those against animal research are covered by a counterintuitive notion because, without animal research, the animals whom they are fighting for would die due to a potentially curable disease. To deal with the ethical dilemma of animal research, countries like the United Kingdom have placed regulations that require the research scientists to show how and if they have considered alternative ways before they are given a license to continue with their research projects. Given these circumstances, we can conclude that the rise in animals used in research must mean that in the near future there may be major medical

Mark Rowlands in his article Contractarianism and Animal Rights focuses on John Rawl’s social contract argument. Rowlands writes that Rawls liberal egalitarian version of contractarianism is more than capable of assigning a direct moral status to non-human animals. This essay will set out Rowlands views with reference to philosophers and academics writing about the rights of non-human animals.

In “The Case for Animal Rights”, Regan explores different philosophical ideologies regarding the treatment of animals by humans. He finds flaws with each having done so he puts forth the idea of animal rights as the philosophy which solves the conundrum. The ideologies he discards are such:

Gary has been holding a position where he has been fighting for animal rights through his books. He argues that animals are seen as property instead of a person. There are several reason as to why animal rights are the way they are, and until laws are changed animals will continue to suffer.( Gary L. Francione,1996) To support his argument he studies the results from when common-law, civil-law traditions are involved. These laws are relevant, because it gives scientist and food distributor’s leverage to give reason as to why animals’ being considered property is not a form of abuse. Gary opposes this claim for a very good reason; he states that animals have a “defect”, such as their incapability to communicate using language. Gary finds that the issues with this are that, welfare is failing to recognize the interest of animals. In his observation he finds that the key to provide animals with useful rights is to convince society, exercise wellness benefits, and demand change.

Both in and out of philosophical circle, animals have traditionally been seen as significantly different from, and inferior to, humans because they lacked a certain intangible quality – reason, moral agency, or consciousness – that made them moral agents. Recently however, society has patently begun to move beyond this strong anthropocentric notion and has begun to reach for a more adequate set of moral categories for guiding, assessing and constraining our treatment of other animals. As a growing proportion of the populations in western countries adopts the general position of animal liberation, more and more philosophers are beginning to agree that sentient creatures are of a direct moral concern to humans, though the degree of this

In “The Case for Animal Rights,” Tom Regan emphasizes his philosophy on animal and human equality. After reading further into his work, he illustrates a societal system that belittles animals and their significance to our own existence. Regan conceptualizes that animals won’t have real rights unless we change our beliefs. We need to acknowledge a problem. After identifying the issue, we must recognize that there is a need for change in society. In addition, he also reiterates the importance of the populace changing the way they view animals. The way society views animals will create a snowball effect that will influence politicians to also believe in animal rights.

In Peter Singers paper “All Animals are Equal”, he attempts to make the point that all animals have interest equal to those of humans. Over the years, both this topic and Peter Singer himself have stirred up much controversy. His beliefs, while radical, are founded upon well-developed logic based upon the utilitarian calculus. In this paper specifically, he supports the rights of non-human animals with two main positions.

The Vancouver Aquarium uses dolphins and belugas to provide entertainment and utilizes the profit gained, to aid them in research. In The Case for Animal Rights, Tom Regan’s moral principles state that there should be total abolition of the use of animals in science as well as for entertainment purposes (337). Moreover, he claims that humans and animals have equal values and rights. Based on this principle, I argue that the practices of the Vancouver Aquarium of using belugas and dolphins for scientific and entertainment purposes is immoral and thus unjustified.

Humans have always had a complicated relationship with non-human animals. This relationship has always benefitted the needs of humans, with little consideration for animals’ needs. Some animals are tortured for entertainment, some are butchered for food and others are taken from their habitat and family, and forced to be pets for humans. These are all examples of the ways humans have exploited animals for their own satisfaction. Hal Herzog’s essay “Animals Like Us” describes the complicated relationship that humans and animals have, and how difficult it is to determine what is ethical when dealing with animals. Jonathan Safran Foer makes a similar observation in his essay “The Fruits of Family Trees” of the ethical issues in the