In “The Case for Animal Rights,” Tom Regan writes about his beliefs regarding animal rights and states certain goals for the animal rights movement. He believes animals have inherent value and are equal to humans and all living beings. Regan has an abolitionist position clearly shown in his distaste for the way animals are treated and goes on to tell us about the fundamentally wrong system of using animals as a resource. Regan argues this position and gives solid reasoning to support his claims on why there needs to be a change. Treating animals as though they are our property and using them only to benefit us is morally justifiable but only to some degree. In the article Regan rejects three different ideas or views about the rights of Animals.
…show more content…
“utilitarian accepts is that of utility: do the act that will bring about the best balance between satisfaction and frustration for everyone affected by the outcome.” (1. Steven M. Cahn and Peter Markie, eds., Ethics: History, Theory, and Contemporary Issues (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 825, http://www.questia.com/read/88356604/ethics-history-theory-and-contemporary-issues.) Although agreeing with some of Philosopher Tom Regan, I myself feel that although limits should be made some of the testing is necessary. How else does one learn about another species? “Every advance in medicine--every new drug, new operation, new therapy of any kind--must sooner or later be tried on a living being for the first time. That trial, controlled or uncontrolled, will be an experiment. The subject of that experiment, if it is not an animal, will be a human being.’ ( Steven M. Cahn and Peter Markie, eds., Ethics: History, Theory, and Contemporary Issues (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 835, http://www.questia.com/read/88356614/ethics-history-theory-and-contemporary-issues.) If my dog was to get cancer and I could send him to a treatment center like a could my girlfriend I would. By allowing the necessary studies on animals it allows us to be prepared for the future times we will see an animal with the same illnesses. Or animals who also have specials needs it teaches us how to better …show more content…
There are a few valid counter arguments we must consider and then fight. First is the utilitarian view on the subject, many people have problems with this theory. For the utilitarian, the only important matter is the overall gain of happiness and it denies that individuals have value. Its human oriented for overall gain and it still allows for animals to suffer to some degree. If there is more happiness created, then harm its acceptable. I do not see an issue with this way of reasoning because there is compromise, and I believe that’s the right way to do things. I don’t see completely stopping all animal use beneficial, but I do not believe in abuse and cruel treatment, so moderation and regulations are what I think are important here. Others would say any type of farming or agricultural is wrong, as well as science and medical testing. No matter what it would be an unnecessary act against an innocent and equally free being. It is fact that we have done huge amounts of animal testing in the past and we currently have many advancements because of it. I was not alive back then to choose how things where done but looking back I do not regret it or see it evolving any other way. That’s not to say that I think all of it was right, but I believe the test for advances was and is necessary. If done with respect the act is permissible to me, with consideration of the outcome of course. Another argument is how can one be
“utilitarian accepts is that of utility: do the act that will bring about the best balance between satisfaction and frustration for everyone affected by the outcome.” (1. Steven M. Cahn and Peter Markie, eds., Ethics: History, Theory, and Contemporary Issues (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 825, http://www.questia.com/read/88356604/ethics-history-theory-and-contemporary-issues.) Although agreeing with some of Philosopher Tom Regan, I myself feel that although limits should be made some of the testing is necessary. How else does one learn about another species? “Every advance in medicine--every new drug, new operation, new therapy of any kind--must sooner or later be tried on a living being for the first time. That trial, controlled or uncontrolled, will be an experiment. The subject of that experiment, if it is not an animal, will be a human being.’ ( Steven M. Cahn and Peter Markie, eds., Ethics: History, Theory, and Contemporary Issues (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 835, http://www.questia.com/read/88356614/ethics-history-theory-and-contemporary-issues.) If my dog was to get cancer and I could send him to a treatment center like a could my girlfriend I would. By allowing the necessary studies on animals it allows us to be prepared for the future times we will see an animal with the same illnesses. Or animals who also have specials needs it teaches us how to better …show more content…
There are a few valid counter arguments we must consider and then fight. First is the utilitarian view on the subject, many people have problems with this theory. For the utilitarian, the only important matter is the overall gain of happiness and it denies that individuals have value. Its human oriented for overall gain and it still allows for animals to suffer to some degree. If there is more happiness created, then harm its acceptable. I do not see an issue with this way of reasoning because there is compromise, and I believe that’s the right way to do things. I don’t see completely stopping all animal use beneficial, but I do not believe in abuse and cruel treatment, so moderation and regulations are what I think are important here. Others would say any type of farming or agricultural is wrong, as well as science and medical testing. No matter what it would be an unnecessary act against an innocent and equally free being. It is fact that we have done huge amounts of animal testing in the past and we currently have many advancements because of it. I was not alive back then to choose how things where done but looking back I do not regret it or see it evolving any other way. That’s not to say that I think all of it was right, but I believe the test for advances was and is necessary. If done with respect the act is permissible to me, with consideration of the outcome of course. Another argument is how can one be