Kant vs. Regan: Who Has Inherent Rights, and Why? Essay

1989 Words Nov 1st, 2013 9 Pages
CRAM Exclusive
Essay Sample
The difference between “right” and “wrong” is rarely plainly clear. Dozens of wars have been fought over the centuries that have been driven by differing moral beliefs. These rights, and actions motivated by them, are justified by a society’s collective morals, which begs the question- who decides what the collective belief of an entire society is? Some seem relatively clear—the right to life, the right to work—while others are significantly cloudier— how does my right to own property and

middle of document…

In order to further clarify the somewhat hazy difference between Kant and Regan’s stances, we must look back at Kantism as a whole and how Kant decides upon what gives value to a human life. Overall, Kantians agree that all humans have no value but rather are “receptacles of value.” It is not that we are humans that gives us any value or worth, but rather that we have desires, specifically a desire to experience and maximize pleasure in the absence of pain. Moral value then, in Kant’s mind, comes from action based off of action based on the desire to maximize the happiness of humans being treated as ends rather than means to an end. Regan disagrees with this, saying that subjects of lives universally possess inherent value and that this value is completely independent of the circumstances of any particular life. By being the subject of a life we are automatically worth something and that something is the same regardless of race, religion, gender, intelligence, or any other distinguishable human trait. This universal human value cannot be lessened without violating a person’s rights. It is almost as if to set the foundation of rights moral philosophers establish that every person’s first and foremost right is the ability to even have rights in the first place because of this inherent value. Because those in Kant’s school
CRAM Exclusive
Pilot62054Pepper

Related Documents

  • Essay about Kant vs. Mill

    Kant vs Mills in Animal Rights In this essay I will cover the philosophy of Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. I will begin by covering Kant perspective of rational beings and his idea of a priori learning. I will then move on to his idea of categorical imparaitive. After Kant I will discuss Mill’s utilitarian theory regarding pleasure and pain. With a better understanding of those I will move to Mill’s idea of a posteriori and hypothetical imperative. Following the ideas of these philosophers

    Words: 1572 - Pages: 7
  • Hume vs Kant Causality Essay

    Hume vs. Kant: Causality Hume's ultimate goal in his philosophic endeavors was to undermine abstruse Philosophy. By focusing on the aspect of reason, Hume shows there are limitations to philosophy. Since he did not know the limits, he proposed to use reason to the best of his ability, but when he came to a boundary, that was the limit. He conjectured that we must study reason to find out what is beyond the capability of reason. Hume began his first examination if the mind by

    Words: 1777 - Pages: 8
  • Compare Tom Regan, Carl Cohen and Peter Singer in Terms of Animal Rights

    Synthesis Tom Regan, Carl Cohen, Peter Singer Animal rights are one of the most controversial issues today. There has been endless debate about whether or not animals have rights. Philosophers attempt to come up with the moral conclusions by taking in account the many different standpoints and presenting their related arguments. In his essay “The case of animal rights”, Tom Regan, a professor of philosophy at North Carolina State University, defends his view that the center of our moral concern

    Words: 824 - Pages: 4
  • Essay on Hume vs. Kant

    looking at not only the world, but society as a whole. This is clearly seen with the two philosopher’s Kant and Hume. Though totally different styles of philosophizing and looking at an ethical theory, it is not to say that one’s theory is better or more justified than the other. It is perhaps a different point of view or another opinion to take in. We must not directly rule out either Hume or Kant because both of their ethical theories have been approved by numerous philosophers and scholars alike

    Words: 1109 - Pages: 5
  • Hume vs. Kant: Moral Philosophy Essay

         From the origin of Western philosophical thought, there has been an interest in moral laws. As Hume points out in the Treatise, "morality is a subject that interests us above all others" (David Hume "A Treatise of Human Nature'). Originally, thoughts of how to live were centered on the issue of having the most satisfying life, with "virtue governing one's relations to others" (J.B. Schneewind 'Modern Moral Philosophy'). However, the view that there is one way to live that is best for everyone

    Words: 1738 - Pages: 7
  • Moral Behavior: Aquinas and Aristotle vs. Kant Essay

    Moral Behavior: Aquinas and Aristotle vs. Kant When comparing between the philosophies of St. Thomas Aquinas/Aristotle and those of Immanuel Kant when regarding moral behavior, there are some very fundamental differences. On one hand, you have Kant’s autonomous perspective on behavior morality, in which you give the law to yourself. On the other hand, you have the heteronomy views of Aristotle and Aquinas which concludes that one can measure their conduct against an external force. Kant’s

    Words: 1359 - Pages: 6
  • Essay about Abortion: The Fetus Has A Right To Live

    activists, who focus their arguments on compassion and freedom of choice of the women as a solution to unwanted pregnancies, such as those caused by rape, incest, family planning, and other unexpected pregnancies. I do not regard myself against any freedom of choice, but I do strongly believe that life begins at conception; therefore, the guilt of circumstances should not be extended to the fetus. Since reproduction is a natural process, the fruit of that process also has some inherent rights that should

    Words: 1930 - Pages: 8
  • Kant vs Aristotle Essay

    best be achieved by a prior means." Or in simplified terms, rationalism is when we come to a conclusion by deduction from abstract ideas (Rogers & Baird 1981, p. 3). Juxtaposed to this way of thinking was Aristotle, a philosopher of the 17 century, who stated "Reality consists ultimately of many concrete, individual things and that nothing else is real except insofar as it in some way pertains to these things (Lamprecht, 1955, p.57)." For Aristotle reality was found in the particular things in this

    Words: 1324 - Pages: 6
  • Essay on Do Animals Have Rights...a Philosophical View

    Do Animals Have Rights? Should animals be harmed to benefit mankind? This pressing question has been around for at least the past two centuries. During the early nineteenth century, animal experiments emerged as an important method of science and, in fact, marked the birth of experimental physiology and neuroscience as we currently know it. There were, however, guidelines that existed even back then which restricted the conditions of experimentation. These early rules protected the animals

    Words: 3997 - Pages: 17
  • Dr. Sakiz Right Vs. Right Essay

    The “Defining Moments: When Managers Must Choose Between Right and Right” written by Joseph L. Badaracco Jr. real life situation, involves the manufacturing and marketing of RU-486, the French abortion pill. The real life situation, involved various stakeholder groups in a decision of manufacturing and marketing the French abortion pill; Roussel-Uclaf a pharmaceutical company, and Dr. Sakiz were making the decision. Dr. Sakiz was a physician with a longstanding personal commitment to RU-486. He would

    Words: 1779 - Pages: 8