Tom Regan The Case For Animal Rights Summary

s book The Case for Animal Rights, philosopher Tom Regan argues that animals have rights due to their inherent value, which means that by existing and experiencing life, animals should be given rights equivalent to those of humans. Philosopher Carl Cohen counters that since nonhuman animals lack the capacity for moral judgments, they cannot have rights, yet we still have obligations to them. Philosopher Mary Warren, too, disagrees with Regan's stance, criticizing his use of obscure terms and sharp line as to what has inherent value and what doesn’t, but holds that animals have weak rights. I argue that while inherent value is an invalid concept, animals are still deserving of some rights, though they lack the qualities that would establish their rights as equal to those of humans.
Regan begins his essay by describing how one could poorly justify their stance on whether or not rights should be denied …show more content…
Regan’s described animal rights would mean it would not be okay for humans to raise an animal for food in humane conditions, yet animals would still be allowed to do horrible acts to each other, such rape, molest, and brutally murder one another, since these behaviors go completely unaddressed. If animals were truly seen as exact equals to humans with the same inherent value, then we would have to invade their natural habitats, monitor them, and protect them from each other as to defend the rights they have been granted, since we would do this for humans. It would be both absurd and unfeasible to protect every single living organism on Earth in such a way. Thus, proposing that animals should be given rights only to humans shows that there are recognizable fundamental differences when it comes to humans and animals and how they should be