Regan's Argument Analysis

In this week’s post, I will discuss why I believe Regan’s argument is better when comparing it to Kant’s argument for the moral status and ethical obligations to animals.
I cannot fully agree with Kant nor Regan’s belief. I find the two perspectives displayed extreme and I find myself somewhere in the middle of both perspectives. I do not believe that we should invade the homes of other species and attempt to aid and /or destruct in some way. I do believe we should aid for no other reason than to correct the damage caused by anthropogenic activity. Although our good intentions may seem to be helpful, we should keep in mind that there are natural processes that are in place that substantially supports a lifestyle similar to the one we live

Other primate species have similar characteristics that include emotions dealing with death, pain, and the consumption of food by way of hunting. Regan supports the fundamental idea underlying his argument that animals are not our resources but rather are experiencing subjects of a life, the same as humans. These life experiences aid in the forming of moral beliefs. I do think Regan’s belief is extreme in the reference to completely eliminate commercial animal agriculture. In my opinion, animal agriculture should be minimized to operate locally versus nationally or globally. Local operation can ensure that there is not an overabundance and misuse of animals. Total elimination is not rational to me because the consumption of meat is in the diet of not only humans but other animal species as well. If we cut hunting out of our diet, should animals cut out hunting their specific choice of preys as well? Although we share similar value in hunting, though the way we hunt is different. In addition, there should be requirements and restrictions on human treatment and living space for

Also, the elimination of hunting and science is extreme, perhaps modifications in production and planning of distributing animal agriculture and the reasoning for science experiments may be necessary. For example, the stock of dolphins and whales. When referring to whales and dolphins by the term “stocks” it implies that they are a resource which can be exploited and taken over by populations (The Economist, 2012). Stocks are defined as “the supply of goods available for sale in a store, a supply of something that is available for use, and a share of the value of a company which can be bought, sold, or traded as an investment” (Merriam-Webster, 2015). Animals should not be subject to such behavior that we would not want to have in our environment. In addition, I believe that animals, such as primates, that have a sense of culture that includes their own moral concept of situation, we should not disturb their ecosystem based on our moral perceptions. Elizabeth Landau reports that although chimp males compete with each other regularly, they also come together to repair their relationships (Landau, 2013). The pattern displayed is also present in the workplace and amongst human