The Case for Animal Rights

850 Words2 Pages

"The Case For Animal Rights" written by Tom Regan, promotes the equal treatment of humans and non-humans. I agree with Regan's view, as he suggests that humans and animals alike, share the experience of life, and thus share equal, inherent value.

To begin with, Regan argues that people tend to believe that animals are 'unaware' of pain, and because humans are capable of announcing when in pain, it is thus considered morally wrong to harm a human being, than an animal. This type of thinking falls under the indirect duty views, which suggests that animals have no connected relationship, or direct link to humans, unlike humans have to their own species. Regan explains that disregarding animals as being capable of experiencing pain is morally wrong in itself, as is the indirect duty views (1989).

Secondly, Regan introduces a second view, known as contractarianism. Although he suggests many flaws in this view, he also agrees that it somewhat supports his view of inherent value. This particular view identifies that since humans have the capability of understanding rules, they are capable of accepting and practising moral doings, and avoiding immoral acts. Thus, humans beings have every right to be treated with respect. Regan explains that this is problematic, because children are not necessarily capable of the same level of thinking as adults, meaning that the view mentioned above cannot be applied. Inspite of this, children do have every right to have protection, simply because they have parents or guardians that take on this so called "contract". Regan argues that if this is the case with children, then why cannot animals also have a contract?, as they do not also have the same level of thinking as an average adult. Nonetheles...

... middle of paper ...

...f you are unlikely to treat a human being in a disrespectful and hurtful way, then why would you do the same to another breathing being, regardless of the type species it is.

In conclusion, I agree with Tom Regan’s perspective of the rights view, as it explores the concept of equality, and the concept of rightful treatment of animals and humans. If a being is capable of living, and experiencing life, then they are more than likely capable of feeling pleasure and pain, except in a few instances. If humans are still treated in a respectable and right way even if some cannot vote, or think for themselves, then it is only fair that animals who also lack in some of these abilities be treated as equals. As Regan puts it, “pain is pain, wherever it occurs” (1989).

Works Cited

Regan, Tom. "The Case For Animal Rights" University of California Press 2004

Show More
Related

  • The Ethics of Animal Use in Biomedical Research

    1849 Words  | 4 Pages

    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 concern is still subject to much disagreement. The political, cultural and philosophical animal liberation movement demands for a fundamental transformation of humans’ present relations to all sentient animals. They reject the idea that animals are merely human resources, and instead claim that they have value and worth in themselves. Animals are used, among other things, in basic biomedical research whose purpose is to increase knowledge about the basic processes of human anatomy. The fundamental wrong with this type of research is that it allows humans to see animals as here for them, to be surgically manipulated and exploited for money. The use of animals as subjects in biomedical research brings forth two main underlying ethical issues: firstly, the imposition of avoidable suffering on creatures capable of both sensation and consciousness, and secondly the uncertainty pertaining to the notion of animal rights.

    Read More

  • An Analysis Of Ill-Gotten Gains, By Tom Regan

    727 Words  | 2 Pages

    The essay “Ill-gotten Gains” first appeared in a book called ‘Health Care Ethics’ and was written by Tom Regan who is a renowned philosopher, author and animal rights advocate. The essay appeared again in Tom Regan’s best known book called ‘The Case for Animal Rights’ which states Regan’s beliefs regarding animal rights and provides a sound argument as to why animals should not be exploited for our own gain. Tom Regan believes all animal use that benefits humans is morally unacceptable including for food, entertainment, labour, experiments and research. “Ill-gotten Gains” argues that to be on the right moral path we need to view all individuals with inherent value as a ‘subject of a life’. Regan argues that any practice in which a ‘subject of a life’ is used as a resource is immoral, not because of emotion, but because of reason. Any individual with a sense of a future, awareness and purpose is considered to be a ‘subject of a life’ and has equal inherent value. Regan also takes time to explore the argument that humans have souls while animals do not.

    Read More

  • Animal Sentience and Equal Consideration of Interests

    1012 Words  | 3 Pages

    In his article entitled “Animal Liberation,” Peter Singer suggests that while animals do not have all of the exact same rights as humans, they do have an equal right to the consideration of their interests. This idea comes from the fact that animals are capable of suffering, and therefore have sentience which then follows that they have interests. Singer states “the limit to sentience...is the only defensible boundary of concern for interests of others” (807). By this, he means that the ability to feel is the only grounds for which rights should be assigned because all species of animals, including humans, have the ability, and therefore all animals have the right to not feel suffering and to instead feel pleasure.

    Read More

  • Carl Cohen's Do Animals Have Rights?

    722 Words  | 2 Pages

    Cohen explains that neither right nor wrong has a right against the other. Rights are of the highest moral consequence, but animals are amoral, they do no wrong ever, because in an animal’s world, there are no rights. Cohen explains that a lion has the right to kill a baby zebra left unintended for the sake of her cubs but us humans have no right to intervene. Cohen states rights are universally human; they arise in a human moral world, in a moral sphere. Rationality isn’t the issue; the capacity to communicate is not at issue, nor is the capacity to suffer, an issue; the issue is that humans project their morals onto amoral things.

    Read More

  • PETA: The Fight For Animal Rights

    1042 Words  | 3 Pages

    “... the right question for animals is not ‘Can they reason?’ ‘Can they talk?’, but ‘Can they suffer?’ ”

    Read More

  • Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach?

    1030 Words  | 3 Pages

    Almost all humans want to have possession and control over their own life, they want the ability to live independently without being considered someone’s property. Many people argue that animals should live in the same way as humans because animals don’t have possession of their lives as they are considered the property of humans. An article that argues for animal rights is “The case against pets” (2016) by Francione and Charlton. Gary L Francione and Anna E Charlton are married and wrote a book together, “Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach (2015). Francione is a law professor at Rutgers University and an honorary professor at University of East Anglia. Charlton is also a law professor at Rutgers University and she is the co-founder of the Rutgers Animal Rights Law Clinic. In this article Francione and Charlton mainly focus on persuading people to believe in animal rights but only focus on one right, the right of animals not to be property. The article is written in a well-supported manner with a lot of details and examples backing it up, but a few counter-arguments can be made against some of their arguments.

    Read More

  • Equality in Peter Singer´s All Animals are Equal

    2024 Words  | 5 Pages

    Lastly, he argues that sentience is the only characteristic that should be considered in terms of granting animal rights. This leads him to the conclusion that “if a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. The principle of equality requires that its suffering be counted equally with the like suffering – insofar as rough comparisons can be made – of any other being”. Before I continue, it is important to note the distinction that Singer makes between “equal considerations” and “equal treatment”. For Singer, “equal consideration for different beings may lead to different treatment and different rights”....

    Read More

  • Philosophy and the Morality of Abortion

    1931 Words  | 4 Pages

    To ascribe an entity with moral status ― whether an adult human, infant, foetus, or non-human animal ― is to declare that its treatment by other moral agents is mo...

    Read More

  • Persuasive Essay On Right To Live

    806 Words  | 2 Pages

    The animal rights movement is trying to get people to see exactly how animals have been treated. Most people see animal cruelty as “…unspeakable acts perpetrated by warped individuals mostly against dogs, cats, birds, and sometimes horses” (Munro, 512). Once seeing how countless animals have been treated, numerous people across the world are joining the cause to help these poor “nonhuman animals”. One reason that supports that animals deserve rights is that “non-human mammals over a year of age have mental capacities for memory, a sense of future, emotion, and self-awareness to a certain extent” (Dog˘an, 474). With this reasoning, animals have enough mental capacity to be considered subjects of life, and therefore deserve rights to support this thesis. Another reason states that “rights are defined in terms of capability of having interests” (Dog˘an, 481). Animals show an interest in living. As stated, “[a]nimals have a natural motive to live…[e]very day, they practice caution and care necessary to protect themselves. Their bodies are likewise structured for survival” (Dog˘an,

    Read More

  • Peter Singer, And Tom Regan, Peter Singer And Aldo Leopold

    1133 Words  | 3 Pages

    As an advocate of animal rights, Tom Regan presents us with the idea that animals deserve to be treated with equal respect to humans. Commonly, we view our household pets and select exotic animals in different regard as oppose to the animals we perceive as merely a food source which, is a notion that animal rights activists

    Read More

  • animal rights

    1959 Words  | 4 Pages

    animals. If they keep the animals, then the animal will be treated as a pet or

    Read More

  • A Philosophical View of Animal Rights

    3952 Words  | 8 Pages

    Over the years, many differences have been proposed. Some theorize that rights depend upon the ability to possess interest, which in turn depend upon the ability to form verbal formulations, for example. If this were so, then it would rule out the possibility of rights for most animals, with maybe the exception of some primates. But, as Rodd states, ?beings incapable of possessing genuine rights might possess moral status in virtue of other qualities, such as the capacity for suffering? (Rodd 4). So, it is easily seen how many views have accumulated over time. The task of determining animal rights has also come into the context of examining these inherent differences on qualitative and quantitative levels.

    Read More

  • Animal moral rights

    654 Words  | 2 Pages

    Another argument that Pollan tackles is animal suffering stating “ it can be argued that human pain differs from animal pain by an order of magnitude.” Pollan justifies humans suffer more than animals due to their possession of language and by, virtue of language, an ability to have thoughts about thoughts and to imagine alternatives to our current situation. Humans pain is intensified by human emotions like loss, sadness, worry, regret,self-pity, shame, humiliation and dread. Pollan is responding to animal activists who are trying to assign animals moral values. Animals clearly do not suffer as much as humans do, so comparing an animal to a child is absurd.

    Read More

  • Should Animals Have Rights?

    996 Words  | 2 Pages

    To conclude this paper then, after reviewing the reasons for being opposed to assigning rights to non-human animals I am still faithfully for the idea. There is no justification for the barbaric and insensitive ways to which we have been treating the non-human animals with over the decades. As I stated before, they are living creatures just as we are, they have families, emotions and struggles of their own without the ones we inflict on them. So then where does this leave us? Of course it is a complicated mater, but none the less non-human animals should be protected with rights against them being used as machines, for food, for their skins, their wool, and all cases in which they are being abused.

    Read More

  • Animal Rights Essay

    970 Words  | 2 Pages

    Animals deserve fair and ethical treatment, however not necessarily equally. Non-human animals and humans are not one in the same, there is no way we will ever be defined and put in the same category. Humans have reference levels, the ability to reason and think logically. We have evolved to the point where we can study, contain, and determine the outcome of basically any animal on Earth, now it’s up to us to ensure they are treated fairly.

    Read More

More about The Case for Animal Rights

Open Document