Nonhuman Animal Rights
analytical Essay
1245 words
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.
In this essay, the author
- Analyzes how tom regan asserts that animals have rights based upon inherent value of experiencing subjects of a life.
- Analyzes how regan positively argues that both human and nonhuman individuals are experiencing subjects of a life. one's usefulness isn't an issue, and they have an equal right to be treated with respect.
- Analyzes regan's claim that both human and nonhuman individuals are experiencing subjects of a life.
- Analyzes how regan believes that an individual has an inherent value, a basic right that is equal amongst individuals.
- Analyzes how regan makes a comparison between the brain surgeon and the fruit vendor to show that certain individuals may have different abilities, talents, or skills, while also concluding that each is an experiencing subject of life with inherent value that is equal.
- Argues that if rights are denounced, one is being acted on immorally and unethically. regan believes that all experiencing subjects of a life have equal inherent value that asserts that said being has rights.
- Analyzes how regan argues that animals have/should have rights because of having inherent value since they are experiencing subjects of a life, but forgot to reciprocate his argument in the eyes of the opposition.
Related
- analytical
- opinionated
- The Case for Animal Rightsanalytical essay"The Case For Animal Rights" written by Tom Regan, promotes the equal treatment of humans and non-humans. I agree with Regan's view, as he suggests that humans and animals alike, share the experience of life, and thus share equal, inherent value.
In this essay, the author
- Opines that tom regan's "the case for animal rights" promotes the equal treatment of humans and non-humans.
- Explains that regan argues that people tend to believe that animals are 'unaware' of pain, and because humans are capable of announcing when in pain. this type of thinking falls under the indirect duty views.
- Analyzes how regan introduces a second view, known as contractarianism, which identifies that humans are capable of accepting and practising moral doings and avoiding immoral acts.
- Analyzes how regan promotes the idea of kindness to all beings, but does not feel that this view provides proper support for the concept of inherent value.
- Explains that utilitarianism is by far the worst because it is based on the fact that sacrifice of one is morally acceptable, as long as it benefits many.
- Explains that regan proposes his view, the rights view. inherent value is the acceptance of all beings as equal to one another inspite of their gender, race, religion, sexuality, and the type of species.
- Agrees with tom regan's view of the rights view, as it explores the concept of equality and rightful treatment of animals and humans.
850 wordsRead More - Peter Singer, And Tom Regan, Peter Singer And Aldo Leopoldanalytical essayAs 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
In this essay, the author
- Analyzes human obligation pertaining to all that is not man-made, apart from humans. environmentally ethical ideals hold a broad spectrum of perspectives that, not only attempt to identify problems, but also focus on how that problem is addressed.
- Analyzes how tom regan influenced the animal rights movement, arguing that animals deserve to be treated with equal respect to humans. his veganism answer is valid in developing a more ethical treatment of our animal friends.
- Analyzes how peter singer's edgier approach to environmental ethics harmonizes with utilitarianism. he believed that one born to pain and suffrage could not reach such pleasure.
- Analyzes how aldo leopold considered the causes and effects within the ecosystem, referred to as ecocentrism. he understood that each natural character nurtured another, hence, his biotic pyramid.
- Opines that we must take in every perspective to be ethical in our approach. with contributions by tom regan, peter singer, and aldo leopold, we begin to develop an educated and informed response in attending to our moral duties.
- Explains that animal rights philosopher tom regan appeared on the late late show part 1 of 4. mitchell, helen. roots of wisdom.
- Explains singer, peter, a companion to ethics. oxford, uk: john wiley and sons, inc.
1133 wordsRead More - Animal Rightsanalytical essayAnimals and man have shared this planet since humans first appeared on earth. Animals have provided transportation, food, clothing, shelter, companionship and entertainment throughout the ages. Therefore, it is our duty to treat animals with respect, care and kindness and not cause them undue suffering, because they have, in many ways, made it possible for man to survive on earth. However, because normal adult humans have superior mental abilities in the hierarchical scale in nature, animals have fewer rights than humans. Consequently, it is our responsibility to support and maintain the animal kingdom (to the best of our ability); therefore helping to preserve them as fellow members or our community of life on earth.
In this essay, the author
- Analyzes how mary ann warren disagrees with regan and singers' strong animal rights position and thinks there is a reasonable way of dealing with animals of different kinds to vary in strength.
- Explains warren, mary ann, "rights of the nonhuman world." environmental philosophy. ed. robert elliot and arran gare.
- Argues that it is our duty to treat animals with respect, care, kindness, and not cause them undue suffering, since they have made it possible for man to survive on earth.
- Analyzes tibor machan's view that animals have no rights and need no liberation, but callousness or cruelty shows disregard to life and is a character flaw.
- Cites rolston iii, holmes, and andrew light, eds. environmental ethics: an anthology. singer, peter. "all animals are equal" from tom regan and peter singer.
2329 wordsRead More - An Analysis Of Ill-Gotten Gains, By Tom Regananalytical essay...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?
In this essay, the author
- Analyzes the essay "ill-gotten gains" by tom regan, a renowned philosopher, author, and animal rights advocate.
- Explains that humans respond differently to experimental treatments, such as thalidomide, flencofenac, and penicillin. there are many alternatives to using animals for research.
- Opines that 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.
727 wordsRead More - The Greatest Paradoxes Of The Modern Animal Rights Movementanalytical essayThe brain-child of Jeremy Bentham, utilitarianism is widely recognized, even by non-utilitarians like Martha Nussbaum, as having “contributed more than any other ethical theory” to the propagation of the animal rights movement and the “recognition that animal suffering is evil” (Wolfe 2008, 12). Predicated upon consequentialist ethics, utilitarianism holds that actions are morally right to the extent that they maximize happiness for the greatest number of persons, and wrong to the to the extent that they result in unhappiness for the greatest number of individuals (Mill 1879, 11). While deriding the so-called “ancient jurists”, who degrade animals into a “class of things”, Bentham’s school of utilitarianism provides a weak foundation for both human rights and “animal rights” (Steiner 2005, 163). Unlike both Christian theism and deontology, which recognize the fact that individuals are ends and not merely means, utilitarianism conceives of individuals, whether human or animal, as means that can be sacrificed upon the altar of utility. Hence, as many animal rights proponents recognize, utilitarianism “seems to have no way to rule out, on grounds of basic justice, the great pain and cruel treatment of some animals” (Wolfe 2008, 10). Even if modern utilitarians like Peter Singer state that “any rights possessed by all human beings, those rights are also possessed by non-human animals”, such “rights” essentially amount to nothing (Singer 1987, 3). Since utilitarians believe that “what is right or wrong depends on consequences”, and rights, by definition, require that the individual interest be protected “even if the consequences would weigh against that protection”, utilitarians generally reject the existence of rights (Francione 2010, 35). Additionally rejecting any sort of innate human
In this essay, the author
- Argues that the animal rights movement's history is dominated by non-christian philosophers like st. francis of assisi and pope francis.
- Explains that jeremy bentham's utilitarian "school" of normative ethics is a product of the "age of enlightenment".
- Compares deontological proponents of animal rights with utilitarianism. they argue that killing animals for food or using them in experiments is wrong, not because of some empirical calculation of total or average well-being.
- Argues that both utilitarianism and deontology ascribe moral rights to indisputably moral agents.
- Argues that christian theism isn't a human-centric worldview, but firmly grounded in the moral duties of human beings.
- Explains that although there is diversity among christians, both ancient and modern, over the specifics of human-animal relations, there unity is overwhelming. while st. francis of assisi is renowned for his love of animals, he was never a strict vegetarian.
1776 wordsRead More - Animal Cruelty: The Lack Of Animal Rightsopinionated essayAnimal rights are the privileges for all animals to live freely from any harm. There were
In this essay, the author
- Opines that animal rights lets us know that some things are simply wrong to do to animals and animals certainly don't deserve torture because of humans.
- Explains that animal rights are the privileges for all animals to live freely from any harm. there were over 1,800 cases of animal cruelty in the past year.
- Opines that people don't think animals have feelings, but they can feel and sense things just like people. equality is not based off of identity, so why not give animals rights?
- Opines that animals should be treated in the best humane way. they should not have the exact same rights as humans.
- Argues that animals have a natural value that is entirely different from what humans use them for. they are mindful of being alive just like humans.
1356 wordsRead More - Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach?analytical essayAlmost all humans want to have possession and control over their own life, they want the ability to live independently without being considered someone’s property. Many people argue that animals should live in the same way as humans because animals don’t have possession of their lives as they are considered the property of humans. An article that argues for animal rights is “The case against pets” (2016) by Francione and Charlton. Gary L Francione and Anna E Charlton are married and wrote a book together, “Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach (2015). Francione is a law professor at Rutgers University and an honorary professor at University of East Anglia. Charlton is also a law professor at Rutgers University and she is the co-founder of the Rutgers Animal Rights Law Clinic. In this article Francione and Charlton mainly focus on persuading people to believe in animal rights but only focus on one right, the right of animals not to be property. The article is written in a well-supported manner with a lot of details and examples backing it up, but a few counter-arguments can be made against some of their arguments.
In this essay, the author
- Analyzes how the article argues for animal rights in which s mainly focus on one right, the right of animals not to be property.
- Analyzes how francione and charlton argue against the controversial wisdom about animals and towards animals not being property.
- Analyzes how francione and charlton's article "the case against pets" (2016) persuade the rights of animals not to be property. s argue their points well but can have counter-arguments against some points.
- Analyzes how gary l francione and anna e charlton's article argues for animal rights and the misconceptions people have towards the property of domesticated animals.
1030 wordsRead More - Can Social Rights be Defended?analytical essayThe phrase ‘Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness’ lies at the core of the United States of America. It implies a list of unalienable rights that were declared in the Deceleration of Independence. These rights are social, economic, political and civil rights. Western societies are characterized by the fact that they provide all of these rights to their citizens. Many philosophical thinkers have argued for and against social rights. It is necessary to examine both aspects of the issue. Some thinkers believe that you can have civil and political rights without social rights and economic rights and others disagree. Throughout this essay we will examine Raymond Plant’s defense for social rights and Lawrence Meads critique of social rights, along with other theories that have been involved in the discussion.
In this essay, the author
- Explains that life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable rights that were declared in the deceleration of independence. philosophers have argued for and against social rights.
- Analyzes how raymond plant argues that social and economic rights need to be protected as equally as civil and political rights. neo-liberal and conservative thinkers dispute social rights; plant accepts that social rights should protect freedom but rejects the new right critique.
- Explains that the concepts of positive freedom and negative freedom play a large role in the debate.
- Argues that freedom can only be made from human agency. plant rejects the neoliberal idea of negative freedom because freedom should not be understood in terms of numbers and quantities.
- Analyzes how plant argues that social rights can pass the same tests as civil and political rights.
- Argues that freedom, choice, and liberty are essential understanding the need for social and rights.
- Analyzes how keat challenges the neoliberal perspective that welfare is inefficient because it generates dependency. he rejects macintyre's argument that the community requirement is for productive practices.
- Explains neo-liberals are the opponents of social rights. they are against the idea of unconditional welfare benefits.
- Explains that neoliberals claim that welfare is not an efficient system of production and distribution. they argue that when the state distributed goods for free it gives the people an incentive to demand more goods.
- Explains that neoliberals believe in protecting negative liberty, which is the freedom from interference from others. welfare systems are committed to protecting positive freedoms.
- Analyzes how norman barry criticizes social rights and the welfare state through a neoliberal and conservative perspective.
- Argues that welfare rights cannot be universalized without interfering with other equally valuable rights, such as the right to property. friedman said that we should have voluntary contributions of individuals.
- Analyzes lawrence mead's criticism of social rights and the welfare state. he refutes the idea that dysfunctional behavior associated with welfare is caused by a simple manipulation of incentive structures.
- Analyzes how mead argues that the economic problem of the welfare state is nonwork, which is the inability to obtain a job and failure to look for one.
- Argues that workfare programs would close the gap between the desires of the poor and their behavior.
- Argues that social rights are not different from political and civil rights and need to be protected to instill negative freedom. mead's argument for a workfare program will provide welfare to the deserving people while decreasing the laziness of the poor.
- Describes fives, a., and campling, j. political and philosophical debates in welfare.
- Explains that plant, r. and barry, n. 1990. citizenship and rights in thatcher's britain.
2752 wordsRead More - On Animal experimentsanalytical essayMost people would agree that animals have some kind of moral status. This presents a shift of view from past that animals had no moral status and respecting them was merely for protecting human property. Today, this question has evolved to how much moral status and what right animals have. (HOPES, 2010)
In this essay, the author
- Explains that many institutions use animal experiments to develop a new product or test the safety of medicines. the moral status of animals and the benefit are highly controversial parts of the concern.
- Opines that both sides of the question seem reasonable, but there are some faults in the statement. supporters of animal experiment consider animals inferior because they have no cognitive abilities.
- Explains that people have a biased view on moral status of animals. judging animals on their cognitive abilities is unjustified because of two reasons: one should not be judged by certain kinds of skill; some intelligence-challenged human, which may not have superior ability, are not considered subjects.
- Argues that animals have the same moral status as humans and that they deserve exact same treatment. they argue that granting animals less moral is simply a prejudice or "speciesism".
- Explains that animal experimentation is acceptable if the suffering for animals is minimized, refine the equipment so that animals would suffer less, and replace animal experiments by using alternative techniques.
- Describes the ethical aspects of animal experimentation, and narrates how hopes, neavs and stevens, a. and j.
665 wordsRead More - Why Do Animals Have Inherent Value?opinionated essayAs 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
In this essay, the author
- Argues that an animal's inherent value shouldn't mean that they are allowed to have the same rights as humans. however, this calls into question the relationship between intrinsic value and rights.
- Opines that infant human beings don't have the same reasoning capabilities as fully grown adults, and therefore have a different level of inherent value than mature humans.
- Opines that there shouldn't be any correlation between age and inherent value. they disagree with caroline's comment about infant humans not having the same "reasoning capabilities as a fully grown adult."
- Argues that all animals have a combination of inherent value and instrumental value, and that this combination is largely dependent on where the animals lie on the food chain.
- Opines that regan's belief about inherent value and moral rights is that if a being has value, it has rights not to be subjected to actions that are detrimental to its well-being.
- Questions regan's motive for stating animals must be of a certain age to have inherent value. they also question why he doesn't include an "upper age limit" in his reasoning.
- Disagrees with regan's theory that all animals have a combination of inherent value and instrumental value, which is dependent on where the animals lie on the food chain.
- Agrees with the notion that all living beings have inherent value. however, using this fact as a precedent for stating universal equality of rights is foolish and woefully unrealistic.
- Opines that it is wrong to apply the same ethical standards expected of humans on animals.
1929 wordsRead More