Tom Regan The Radical Egalitarian Case For Animal Rights Analysis

The animal rights movement declares that animals have the same right to life and protection from suffering, as well as any other creature that can feel pain. Doctor of Philosophy, Tom Regan, justifies animal rights from the standpoint of logic. In his article “The Radical Egalitarian Case for Animal Rights”, the author takes a firm stance on this issue and claims that almost all human relationships with animals have the exploitative nature. At the same time, animals have the right to meet the needs and the implementation of their natural purposes. Tom Regan 's argument can be formulated as follows non-human animals have an equal right to respect and treatment for them, which means that hurting them or using as a raw material or a kind of resource …show more content…
Then, he compares them with the theory, which says that we have direct duties to the animals. Regan rejects contractarianism. (Regal T., 1985, p.35) He believes that the rules of this theory cannot be considered fair. The author cites the example of children and individuals with mental retardation, explaining that they, as well as animals, are not able to sign an agreement, which means that such a theory is unjust and cannot be used in the case of non-human animals. Regan did not consider virtue ethics an adequate theory, as he believes that the virtuous action is not always the right action. As for the theory of utilitarianism, Tom Regan considers two principles of utilitarianism: that is the principles of equality and utility. Utilitarianism believes the animals belong to the sentient beings with equally weighted interest. However, this argument is not sufficient for the author as his view is more radical. In order to prove his opinion of utilitarianism, he cites the example of Aunt Bea. The author describes a situation, in which Aunt Bea is going to give him a large sum of money after her death. He wants to donate a significant portion of that money to the hospital for children to avoid increasing of his taxes. However, if he does not get the money now, he will not be able to donate them to the hospital. Thus, he decides to kill Aunt Bea with a help of a shady doctor. In his opinion, the murder of the aunt would benefit children. (Regal T., 1985, p.35) Tom Regan believes that in terms of utilitarianism, such murder can be justified, so, he also rejects it as an inadequate theory. Regan eventually concludes that none of them can be correct, and offers the most satisfactory theory in his view, that is the rights view. (Regal T., 1985, p.36) This theory is based on the concept of intrinsic value. The author