Tom Regan Animal Rights

Tom Regan “The Case for Animal Rights” The term inherent value is a state in which a being is more than just an object; it professes that any being has inherent value equally. Tom Regan uses the inherent value term to defend his case for animal rights by stating that animals possess these inherent rights and that it is justifiable to abolish the use of animals in science, hunting, and agriculture, etc. There are three main views to argue Regan’s inherent values term. One can argue against him by placing the idea of moral values upon him, the idea of acting to gain freedom, and the concepts of rationality and social context. First, one might place the idea of moral values on Regan to argue against his case of inherent value that protects …show more content…
It is the sense of rationality and ability to socially connect with others in the world. Humans have a great ability to rationalize and connect socially with others, but animals cannot. An animal lacks these abilities and cannot rationalize or socially connect with others therefore, there is no reason they should hold inherent rights and values. For example, a human has the ability to rationalize a specific action such as deciding to invade a country, whereas an animal would not rationalize invading another animal’s territory until that animal experienced the consequences of invading that territory. Most animals do not communicate through language as humans can, and cannot understand reasoning and emotion that provides social connection. Regan would argue for both the action for freedom and the rationality and ability to socially connect arguments by asking them, does it really matter that an animal cannot rationalize or take action to gain freedom? And should they suffer because of this? Regan would claim that the action for freedom argument is unjustifiable. He would state that one’s freedom is not taken away just because they did not put forth any effort or action to gain it. In America, there are people who do/did not put any effort to gain their freedom, it is just protected by the constitution of the United States of America. So, why should animals not have the same inherent values as humans? Regan would then argue the rationalizing and socially connecting argument by placing babies and children into the equation. Children and babies do not have the sense to rationalize or socially communicate, but they do hold inherent value, in which an arguer would reply that a baby or child is going grow into abilities that will allow it to have inherent values. Regan would then place upon them the idea that people with severe mental disabilities hold inherent value, but will not get better