Analysis Of Tom Regan's Arguments For The Ethical Treatment Of Animals

Decent Essays
Tom Regan argues for the treatment of animals to be the same as that of humans. Rather than arguing a utilitarian perspective, Regan posits that an inherent value exists within entities that are what he calls “the subject of a life,” or rather have the ability to perceive and to possess desires and to deprive these entities of their life without sufficient moral reasoning is unconscionable. While humans may be privy to a larger range of cognitive abilities, Regan argues that these talents are superfluous and that mutual respect must be equally enjoyed amongst all subjects of life. This implies that consumption of meat must cease and that subjection to research cannot unilaterally be applied to animals. Opponents to Regan’s stance argue that …show more content…
It posits that because predation deprives an animal of its life, it is an unethical partnership and if humans and animals were to be considered truly morally equal, humans would be obligated to interfere with these unethical natural relationships and prevent this suffering. Humans would for example have the obligation to protect gazelles from lions in the same fashion as humans would protect small children from lions, as Regan allows no distinction between humans and animals. Because there is no current system of policing the natural world, so the argument goes, humans are failing their ethical duty. This implies that there must not be an assignment of rights to animals and that Regan’s stance is …show more content…
To not harm is a moral obligation. That is, to cause harm from the direct consequences of one’s own actions is morally reprehensible and must be avoided. This does not, however, impose a moral obligation to mitigate harm where it may exist if it should fall from the hands of others. For example, the act of helping—though morally good—is not a moral obligation. This is derived from envisioning a system in which every human helps one another in every achievable scenario. While this theoretical world is possible, the implications that not constantly expending energy to help others is somehow morally unconscionable is overly demanding and relegates the act of helping as an imperfect duty—an action that is good, but is not required. While the act of saving an animal from the clutches of a carnivore could be viewed as morally good, because it creates an overly demanding system, it cannot be viewed as an obligate duty, permitting the lack of a police state for the autonomy of

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    So instead of using the term “animal rights,” people should use the term “animal welfare.” Animals don’t have the same rights or even close to the same rights as us humans. Animal welfare states that we know that animals may be used for certain purposes but shouldn’t be mistreated or abused. Some people say that animals behave selfishly, and only look out for themselves and their own interests. Since animals don’t behave morally they don’t deserve to be treated morally by human beings. If we want animals to have rights like us humans then that means we can’t breed or kill them for…

    • 1066 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Singer’s showing that there are inevitable reasons when we can’t treat the subgroups in a big group the same with each other and grants them the same right due to distinct differences. Singer introduces Betham’s view on the aspect of most people look down on animals just because they are not humans. Singer believes that we are privileged humans and that is what we only know and what we are comfortable…

    • 1379 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    As sentient beings have a natural interest in not suffering. So moral consideration does not depend on who can reason morally but in whom can suffer. Morality is a matter of the interests of sensitive beings, and therefore it is unfair to exclude non-human animals. Animals have moral value and deserve thoughtfulness because they can experience pain. According to utilitarianism, the welfare of each must count.…

    • 1352 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    I also believe that it is moral to test on animals if it has a positive result to help aid humans. On the other hand, it is morally wrong to test on animals when it does not serve a purpose to humans. I am a speciesist and I believe that the life of a human is more important than the life of a bear. However, I believe that it is morally wrong to torture innocent animals for no reason. Cruelty should not be permitted, animals have a right to not be treated bad for no reason, but other than that they do not have many…

    • 892 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    It is considered very unethical to use a human as a test subject in an experiment even for biomedical research, so animals are used. By simply accepting the use of animals in tests over the option of using humans, we are considered Speciests. If humans viewed animals as equals or as valuable as humans, animals would not be used as test subjects. This is a prime example of Speciesism, because we favor the human population by protecting them from being used in biomedical research. The reasoning behind Speciesism seems to be that humans have deeper…

    • 716 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The controversy over animal rights is one of the most argumentative in ethics and morality. Many people believe animals do not have rights, and that the people who support animal rights are liberals who need to find other outlets for their beliefs. Others feel it is our moral obligation to nurture animals as they cannot speak or act for themselves. Immanuel Kant’s view does not claim that it is permissible to cause pointless animal suffering, but he does insist that we have no obligations to the animals themselves. I will argue that humans do have obligations to the animals themselves.…

    • 835 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Furthermore, utilitarian’s say humans should either become vegetarian or treat the animals as humans before killing them (Rachels, 2015). If this were to be practiced then it would be acceptable and justified to eat animal meat. But, as long as humans continue to mistreat animals before killing or experimenting on them, utilitarian’s will not condone this. Utilitarian’s require humans to treat the animals like human’s and if they fail to do this then we should not use them to experiment on or to kill and eat. This is a positive aspect to the theory because we take animals for granted.…

    • 1122 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Inherent value is described primarily in negative terms, and there is no specific definition that would appropriately define whether or not a being has inherent value. Additionally, the line for what is classified as having inherent value and what does not is not clearly drawn. In fact, it is impractical to create the line anywhere, as doing so would allow two similar species on either side of the line to be respected in entirely different ways since inherent value is an absolute property. In an attempt to remedy this, Warren promotes a weak animal rights theory which ascribes simple principles that protect animals from universal wronging. Although this is better than Regan’s absolute approach, human-generated rights cannot be applied to animals.…

    • 1642 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Goodall also states that when coming to the realization that animals have the same right as we do to inhabit the earth, but there is a big communication barrier between us. This barrier might prevent humans to further understand what steps humans need to take in order to understand animal suffrage. Additionally, there are some exceptions for treatment of all living things. People will discuss that even the smallest insect should also receive the same treatment. I think moral treatments of any living thing should just be left to what the people and our brains think is morally right or wrong.…

    • 739 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    In “Animal “Rights Versus Human Rights”, Edwin Locke argues that only humans have rights, and that animal rights activists are anti-humanitarian (1). He claims that only creatures capable of thinking and making choices have rights (Locke 1), having a right doesn’t depend on a creature’s ability to feel pain (Locke 1). He also implies that animals are unable to think and make choices (Locke 1). Therefore animals are inadequate of moral reasoning. Another point he makes is that animal rights activists place more value on animals than they do on humans (Locke 2).…

    • 810 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays

Related Topics