Tom Regan's The Case For Animal Rights

For many years there has been an ongoing debate on whether or not animals should be given rights, even there own bill of rights. Some who are against the animal bill of rights argue that testing products on animals is important to the safety of humans. Others who want the new bill of rights claim that animals have feelings and that science is treating them inhumanely. Animal activists also add that animals are intelligent beings and are aware of how they are treated. Based on science proving animal activists correct on many of their points, this calls for a new bill of rights, in the United States, especially written for the protection and care of wild and domestic animals.

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

Non-human animals should have the same rights that humans have such as not being used as food, clothing, entertainment, or experimentation.

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”.

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

The statement by Paul McCartney rings true, “If slaughterhouses had glass walls everyone would be a vegetarian.” Animal rights is a concept which people hardly ever consider in a serious light. Being born as a human being, having a superior mental capacity and sense of times makes people think that they can rule this world and use other living beings as they see fit. This mentality leads to people say things like “animals are born to eaten” or how Aristotle claimed “all of the nature exist specifically for the sake of men” and “that animal are merely instruments for humankind.” (Pg. 495). This way of thinking often leads to overconsumption of animals, cruelty to animals and loss of species.

On the topic of animal rights, Vicki Hearne and Peter Singer represent opposite ends of a belief spectrum. Singer describes, in numerous articles, that he believes animal rights should focus on if the animal is suffering, and the best option to prevent it is to limit interaction between animals and humans. Specifically, in “Speciesism and Moral Status” Singer compares the intelligence and ability of non-human animals to those with severe cognitive disabilities to establish an outrageous solution to animal belittlement. He uses logos (the appeal to reason) and ethos (the appeal to ethics), to question the current rights in place to appeal to other scholars. Nevertheless, his approach can cause an emotional disconnect to the readers; this apparent in contrast to Hearne’s pathos (the

Shamarkia Minor Carol Hogan EN 1103-71 5 October 2014 Animals Have Rights Too It has always been a problem when it comes to the ‘rights’ of animals. Some people believe that these defenseless, small creatures don’t have rights that are equivalent to human rights. In Tom Regan’s article, “Animal Rights, Human Wrongs”, he attempts to get the attention of people who are taking advantage of these small animals and using them for their own selfish reasons.

Peter Singer, David Lane, Tom Regan, And Michael Shermer all believe in the well being of animal and their rights. Singer states, “ that animals ought to have all of the rights that we think humans ought to have”. 45 million rats and mice are used in labs and almost 3 billion chickens get raised in farms, stuffed in cages, and hung upside down to be slaughtered. Regan believes, “ Any creature who has a complex mental life such as perception, desire, belief, memory, and a sense of the future amongst other attributes is a subject-of-a-life”. Every life of an animal is just as important as the other.

Animals are designed to provide good to humans, and the ecosystem which resembles as a disposal service. In return for the goods and the services, animals receive the confinement, toxins, death, which is where the economy breaks down (Stibbe 67). The animal liberation movement, in contrast with wildlife conservation, focuses specifically on the animals who suffer most at the hands of humans. The ones whose relationships with humans consist of little more than abuse and exploitation. It was a discourse to promote a change in human/animal relationships, yet this discourse has its limits, Tester (199I: 196) sums up one limit to the animal liberation movement “ The animals are nothing more than objects to which something is done (Stibbe 76).” Animal agency is a contentious philosophical issue. There are theorists who are important to attribute agency to animals at all, who fear it as an anthropomorphic and therefore does not respect the different nature of animals. The discourse of animal rights is common with the animal liberation, but calls for legal rights to be created as a certain species of animals. Animals are considered to be species, resources, subspecies,

On a more emotional aspect of this piece, I think it's important to mention what these animals are actually going through every second of their lives, it will shine a new perspective on someone who may not even realize or believe animals can't emote or feel certain pains because they don't speak our language(s). Michael Slusher, a previous vivisectionist, now animal rights activist. Wrote a book titled, “They All Had Eyes: Confessions of A Vivisectionist.” This books heavily goes into detail of what it's actually like behind the closed doors of these testing facilities, one memoir being, “The crunch and pop of the neck bones would tell me that I was successful. Their residual nerve response would cause all their legs to violently kick and jump...this

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.

In Peter Singer’s piece “All Animals Are Equal”, he begins his argument by an in-depth consideration of notable rights movements, such as the Black Liberation and women’s rights movement, then segues into the justification for equal consideration of rights regarding animals, before finally exposing the immorality behind factory farming and animal cruelty. According to Singer, “the basic principle of equality…is equality of consideration; and equal consideration for different beings may lead to different treatment and different rights” (Singer 1974, 506). Based off proposed animals’ rights to equal consideration, Singer formats his main arguments against factory farming and the mistreatment of animals in general. These arguments stem from

Over the past years, animals have always been in danger. Not everyone knows the real struggle that people put animals in. Now a days a lot of humans are trying to help out in order for animals to have Liberation. According to the three sources “Animal Rights, Animal Wrongs” By Steven M. Wise, “The Animal liberation movement” By Peter Singer, and The Visual Of three animals, all explain differently towards Animal Rights and Liberation. The first source is based on the how worldwide animals are incable of having their freedom. The author wants to show the value of all kinds of animals in the world. The Secoond source is briefly about explaining of where they are trying to take the animal liberation and the ideas the humans have for it. The third

I took the action of watching a documentary film to learn more about the animal rights movements. The animal rights movement is about believing that non-human animals deserve protection and recognition. I first came across this issue when I saw a YouTube video talking about veganism. They consistently kept recommending this film about Gary Yourofsky discussing animal rights. After watching this film, it became so important to me because hearing about it and how animals are treated with such disrespect, it broke every bone in my body so to see what these animals go through. Since I felt so strongly about this issue I decided to discuss this with family and friends. I educated them as much as possible on what I absorbed from this film. When