Animal Cruelty: Tom Regan And Peter Singer

In today’s culture there is a consensus that opposes animal cruelty, from government organizations to non profit organizations. Is it morally okay to inflict some pain on animals if it is for the benefit of a certain group; can it be justifiable? Tom Regan and Peter Singer position on vivisection but understand moral value in a more individualist term instead of a group of species. Regan and Singer both discuss vivisection in different terms. One looks at it through deontology (Regan) while the other through utilitarianism (Singer).

Tom Regan's position on moral consideration toward animals is about 'animal liberation' based on animal rights. He is against animal cruelty, stands for the welfare and the protection of animals. Cruelty is wrong on all account, “morally vile for the same reasons” (Regan pg. 66). He wants to abolish not reform the human to non human relationship. Is it morally okay to inflict pain on animals? Rights outweigh the interest that someone may have. Regan believes in the moral rights which are based on the

inherent value, and implying that you cannot treat as just a means. If humans have rights then animals should have rights as well. According to Regan we have a duty as humans to protect these habitats and improve the quality of life, not just avoiding cruelty. He states that “the interest of everyone affected by what we do must be taken into account and equal interest must be counted equally” (Regan pg. 68). You can not ignore the interest whatever it may be or the amount. We have regarded animals as resources to be experimented, used and destroyed for human purposes only. Animals have the right to not be treated as a mean but to be treated with respect.
All beings are conscious beings that have an individual welfare that has importance to whatever its usefulness to others. Tom Regan’s view is more of an individualistic than a group of species. Individuals of a species not the species as a whole is what is important to determine moral value. Individuals are morally expendable in the greater good of a community. As long as the welfare of others are protected and that there is no excessive suffering to animals. Regan does not believe in the testing of animals, just because they lack moral value they are treated cruelly does not matter the reason behind the testing. The ends does not justify the means.
Peter Singer's main focus on the interest of sentient beings instead of rights (Regan). He does not think that we have to treat all humans and non humans exactly alike. Singer believes that human interest exceeds that of non humans, not just because they are human. As Regan says, "any consideration of interest must occur on the grounds of certain "basic moral rights”. Singer is not implying that all species are equal in regard to intelligence, ability to communicate or the ability to suffer (pain). "The moral basis of equality among humans is equality in fact, but the principle of equal consideration of interest" (Singer pg. 57). This principle must apply to all living organisms that have some sort of interest. Do non humans have subjunctive experiences, do organisms have a conscious? No matter whether or not they have a conscious, the moral concern should be on all beings with interest, must give equal consideration.
Singer believes that we must give as much equal weight to violations to humans as well as non humans. Must consider all beings interest whether it is a non human or a human with disabilities or infant. Even though they do not have the mental capabilities as normal humans does not mean that they are not equal, they have at least one right. Regarding performing experiments (testing soap or perfume, etc.) on non humans due to the lack of interest that some believe non humans have. Many people would never do test on the mentally disabled or an infant because they believe that it is not justifiable. They do not take into account the pain and suffering that non humans go through when being tested on, and the potential harm that it can do to the ecosystem. The experiments are all not in the interest of the being it is being tested on but for human purposes only. It is all based on the beings interest to society. "If human suffering is intrinsically bad, then it is arbitrary to maintain that animal suffering is of no intrinsic significance" (Singer pg. 59).
Singer does believe in utilitarianism and that actions are justified by their consequences.

If animal experiments could lead to immense benefits, they could be defensible. We should look at these issues and try to put yourself in them would you want to be tested on for purposes that does not benefit your species. Because we value a humans life over a non human life the chance of using a human is unlikely. If an experiment has failed it is better that it has failed with a non human that does not share or lack the same interest than that of a human. People that believe this way are somewhat of a speciesists, if they have no problem conducting an experiment on a non human but when it comes to a human that has no cognition. Speciesism is a type of discrimination, believing that one species (human) is greater and that their lives are more valuable just because they feel pleasure/ pain and can understand reasoning better than a non

human.
Both Regan and Singer arguments favor the greater moral consideration toward animals. Their approach is quite different one from a Utilitarian side and another from a deontology side. Regan argument is that all beings have a right and that it is our duty to protect it. While Singer argument is based on the utilitarian approach, the idea of pleasure determining whether it has moral value or not.