In regards to animals, the issue of rights and whether they exist becomes a touchy subject. In the essay, “Nonhuman Animal Rights: Sorely Neglected,” author Tom Regan asserts that animals have rights based upon inherent value of experiencing subjects of a life. Regan’s argument will first be expressed, later explained, and evaluated in further detail. Lastly, that fact that Regan thinks rights are harbored under the circumstance of being an experiencing subject of a life will also be discussed in terms of the incapacitated, etc. Regan positively argues that both human and nonhuman individuals are experiencing subjects of a life. Experiencing subjects of a life have an inherent value, which is nevertheless, equal among the populace. One’s usefulness is not a factor in regards to one’s inherent value, and they have an equal right to be treated with respect. Nonhumans have rights based upon denoted inherent value, thus the use of the individual in an exploitive manner, compromises the moral foundation of rights. Regan claims that both human and nonhuman individuals are experiencing subjects of a life. Basically, if something is “a conscious creature having an individual welfare” (Regan 69), then it is a subject of a life. The usefulness of said individual is not important in this instance but will be further discussed. Utility is unimportant in the grand scheme of the moral equality of value. Regan argues that subjects of a life “want and prefer things, believe and feel things, recall and expect things…all make a difference to the quality of our life…they [animals] too must be viewed as the experiencing subjects of a life, with inherent value of their own” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Individuals and animals are not diffe... ... middle of paper ... ... fact that the subjects of a life claim draws nonhumans into the view of having rights morally, Regan inadvertently sections some of the humans off of this foundation. In an attempt to expand his view on what deserves rights, he may have just narrowed the field at the same time. Regan sums up worth and rights with his abstract view of inherent value. How is said value measured? Although some areas of Regan’s argument seem a bit fuzzy, his attempt to align rights to more than just humans is satisfying. Works Cited "The Moral Status of Animals." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University, 13 Sep 2010, Web. 23 Feb 2012. < http://plato.stanford.edu/ entries/moral-animal/>. Regan, Tom. “Nonhuman Animal Rights: Sorely Neglected.” You Decide!: Current Debates in Contemporary Moral Problems. Ed. Bruce N. Walker. New York: Pearson, 2006. 64-71.
The existence of deep philosophical disagreement need not be an occasion for alarm or despair; it could, instead, point the way to a fruitful method of proceeding. Thus, a theory of the character and value of rights might be expected at the very minimum to identify certain crucial issues— where philosophers are divided—and then to sketch out the main grounds of the positions taken. What we would be looking for is the crux, the hinge on which the issue turns, so that it might be resolved one way or the other.
Peter Singer’s arguments in Animal Liberation have often been misunderstood. The most mutual, and important, misunderstanding among professional thinkers consists in the belief that the moral argument advanced by Animal Liberation is created on utilitarianism, besides not, as is in fact the situation, on the belief of no maleficence. Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation is surely one of the most persuasive, powerful and efficient works of applied integrities ever printed. Since the publication of the first edition in April 5, 1973, Singer’s work has been spoken, and its main theses enthusiastically argued by others. In the essay Singer’s tone was very rational and patient,
...nimal rights yet I do question myself where to draw the line. I do not condone violence or harm against animals, yet I shudder at the thought of a mice plague and feel saddened by the extinction of our native animals by ‘feral’ or pest species. Is it right to kill one species to save another? I am appalled by the idea of ‘circus’ animals yet I will attend the horse races every summer for my entertainment. I think Tom Regan’s argument and reasoning for animal rights was extremely effective at making whoever is reading the essay question his or her own moral standards. Reading the essay made me delve into my own beliefs, morals and values which I think is incredibly important. To form new attitudes as a society it is important we start questioning how we view the lives of others, do we see animals as a resource to be exploited or as equals with rights just like we do?
His first premise is that all of us, human and non-human animals, have equal inherent value. According to Regan, all human beings, regardless of sex, race, religion, birthplace, etc., altogether have inherent value, possess it equally, and have an equal right to be treated with respect. He states that we should not limit this inherent value only to human, but to non-human animals as well even though animals lack many abilities that humans possess; for examples, they are not able to read, to use technology, to write a philosophy paper. In this case, the fact is that some humans, such as feral children and people with mental disabilities, are also incapable of performing these acts, yet we should never say that they have less inherent values than the others. That is, we should apply the similar condition to animals, which implies that humans and animals, both of who experience the subject of life, have inherent value. As a consequence, this indication leads to the next part of his argument for animal
Philosophers and scholars have long debated the human moral and ethical obligations towards non-human animals. The opposing paradigms of animal ethics a...
Animal rights are the privileges for all animals to live freely from any harm. There were
... animal rights view, the animals, like humans have rights in the “utility- trumping sense”. The utility-trumping sense have vital interest that we must not override, even in an effort to maximize the utility for society. (Animal Rights, 20)
As an advocate of animal rights, Tom Regan presents us with the idea that animals deserve to be treated with equal respect to humans. Commonly, we view our household pets and select exotic animals in different regard as oppose to the animals we perceive as merely a food source which, is a notion that animal rights activists
To a great extent, the theory of personhood rests on a breaking down and clarification of what it is to be an agent. Human rights, as understood by Griffin, are protections of our status as functional human agents, grounded in our interests in autonomy, liberty and the minimum material provision requisite to make the exercise of our agency real and possible. Griffin acknowledges that the human interests in autonomy and liberty are not the only important interests that exist, but it is the protection of these particular interests that generate a human right . In this sense, autonomy and liberty are the special, determinant grounding elements identified by Griffin as the interests required for normative agency.
Secondly, Regan introduces a second view, known as contractarianism. Although he suggests many flaws in this view, he also agrees that it somewhat supports his view of inherent value. This particular view identifies that since humans have the capability of understanding rules, they are capable of accepting and practising moral doings, and avoiding immoral acts. Thus, humans beings have every right to be treated with respect. Regan explains that this is problematic, because children are not necessarily capable of the same level of thinking as adults, meaning that the view mentioned above cannot be applied. Inspite of this, children do have every right to have protection, simply because they have parents or guardians that take on this so called "contract". Regan argues that if this is the case with children, then why cannot animals also have a contract?, as they do not also have the same level of thinking as an average adult. Nonetheles...
As the article says, Regan’s theory requires us to divide all living things into two categories. Firstly, those that have inherent value have the same basic rights that humans have and secondly those do not have inherent value have no moral right. Personally, I disagree quite strongly with this notion, I feel that all animals, including humans have a combination of inherent value and instrumental value and that this combination is largely dependent on where the animals lies on the food chain. I say food chain because I strongly disagree with using animals for other reasons such as for fur and carpets as I feel it is immoral to gain utility from animals for decorative purposes. For example, a human would have close to 100% inherent value and
Tom Regan, “The Case for Animal Rights,” in In Defense of Animals, ed. Peter Singer (Oxford:
The biocentric worldview, which is life centered, focuses on the importance of all living things and considers all living things to have intrinsic value. I will be using Peter Singer’s ideas as the main focus explaining that animals share equal moral status with human beings and that therefore is unethical for people to kill and eat them. In “All Animals are Equal” by Peter Singer recognizes that there are differences between humans and other species. As he ...
To conclude this paper then, after reviewing the reasons for being opposed to assigning rights to non-human animals I am still faithfully for the idea. There is no justification for the barbaric and insensitive ways to which we have been treating the non-human animals with over the decades. As I stated before, they are living creatures just as we are, they have families, emotions and struggles of their own without the ones we inflict on them. So then where does this leave us? Of course it is a complicated mater, but none the less non-human animals should be protected with rights against them being used as machines, for food, for their skins, their wool, and all cases in which they are being abused.
Cavalieri , Paola. The Animal Question: Why Nonhuman Animals Deserve Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Print.