Tom Regan

for Animal Rights” written by Tom Regan, the author analyzes reasons for why all beings should have rights, but argues in particular why animals should have basic rights, like humans. “I regard myself as an advocate of animal rights- as a part of the animal rights movement”(Regan 337). The goals of the movement include the following: not allowing the use of animals in science, commercial agriculture, and the eradication of commercial and sport hunting or trapping. Regan blantly dismisses people who

Zoos Morally Defensible? A Criticism of Tom Regan's Argument In his essay "Are Zoos Morally Defensible?" Tom Regan uses utilitarian and rights approaches to argue that zoos are not morally defensible. However, the answer he reaches is a default answer. His actual argument is that it is impossible to acquire all of the information that one would need to answer the question of whether zoos are morally defensible, which leads him to the conclusion that they are not defensible. He reaches this conclusion

of the test group within fourteen days, however, are merely two example of the cruelty experienced by animals in biomedical research laboratories. The two most prominent current defenders of strong status for animals are neo-Kantian philosopher Tom Regan and utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer. Although they undertake this defence from two different theoretical perspectives, as neo-Kantians defend this position in terms of rights, and utilitarians tend to avoid talking in terms of rights, they arrive

Rights, Human Wrongs”, Tom Regan, discusses the cruelty of what several animals go through and what people are doing about it. In this selection Regan tries to appeal to the emotions of the reader, gives facts on the things that are being done by people to animals, and tries to establish his credibility in the reading. Though Tom Regan writes about an important topic, there is very little credibility shown throughout the document. When discussing the whaling incident, Regan takes the account of an

right. On the other hand it is scientists and researchers who think that animals are good testing subjects because of various reasons such as preventing harmful products or finding cures to diseases. The two essays “Animal Rights, Human Wrongs” by Tom Regan and “Proud to be Speciesist” by Stephen Rose talk about the concerns of animal rights but display the opposite viewpoints on the use of animals. Regan's argument has a more broad concept to the matter while Rose takes a deeper dive into exacts with

Anna Katherine Giddens Laura Vernon EN 1103-39 24 October 2011 Animal Rights: Comparing the Views of Hasselstrom and Regan Imagine an animal’s feeling of panic and fear as it is about to be killed by a hunter or the isolation experienced as an animal sits in a laboratory, separated from its family and natural habitat, waiting to be harmed by harsh testing methods. Imagine the frightened state of a mother or father watching their innocent baby being captured. After considering the brutality

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

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

Park Board (VPB) passed a motion to ban the use of cetaceans for entertainment or research purposes. This motion has lead to a heated debate among animal right supporters and others who believe the ban was too harsh. Some supporters of the ban use Tom Regan’s view, a philosopher who adopts the abolitionist view of animal rights, to argue that the motion is justified. Others who favour against the ban believe that the Vancouver Aquarium is an organization that helps cetaceans by research and educating

animals. And if we have these moral obligations towards animals, what are the implications of these obligations for humans? Observing animals rights from the viewpoints of a utilitarian such as Peter Singer, an Animal Rights Philosophy Specialist Tom Regan, and English Philosopher Roger Scruton, allows us to be able to fully develop and discuss the complexities of animal rights.