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 conclusion, I agree with Tom Regan’s perspective of the rights view, as it explores the concept of equality, and the concept of rightful treatment of animals and humans. If a being is capable of living, and experiencing life, then they are more than likely capable of feeling pleasure and pain, except in a few instances. If humans are still treated in a respectable and right way even if some cannot vote, or think for themselves, then it is only fair that animals who also lack in some of these abilities be treated as equals. As Regan puts it, “pain is pain, wherever it occurs” (1989).
Regan, Tom. “The Case for Animal Rights.” In Animal Rights and Human Obligations, 2 ed.. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1989.
The essay “Ill-gotten Gains” first appeared in a book called ‘Health Care Ethics’ and was written by Tom Regan who is a renowned philosopher, author and animal rights advocate. The essay appeared again in Tom Regan’s best known book called ‘The Case for Animal Rights’ which states Regan’s beliefs regarding animal rights and provides a sound argument as to why animals should not be exploited for our own gain. Tom Regan believes all animal use that benefits humans is morally unacceptable including for food, entertainment, labour, experiments and research. “Ill-gotten Gains” argues that to be on the right moral path we need to view all individuals with inherent value as a ‘subject of a life’. Regan argues that any practice in which a ‘subject of a life’ is used as a resource is immoral, not because of emotion, but because of reason. Any individual with a sense of a future, awareness and purpose is considered to be a ‘subject of a life’ and has equal inherent value. Regan also takes time to explore the argument that humans have souls while animals do not.
We can begin to see the error in this view by considering Thomson’s comparison of the right to life with the right to vote. Thomson fails to advert the fact that some rights vary with respect to place, circumstances, maturity, ability and other factors, while other rights do not. We recognize that one's right to life does not vary with place as does one’s right to vote…. But to have the right to life is have moral status at all (Lee and George 17).
In his Meditations, Rene Descartes argues that animals are purely physical entities, having no mental or spiritual substance. Thus, Descartes concludes, animals can’t reason, think, feel pain or suffer. Animals, are mere machines with no consciousness. Use the Internet to explore the issue of animal rights. Investigate the legacy left by Rene Descartes concerning the moral status of animals.
Wilson, James. “Transhumanism and Moral Equality." Bioethics 21.8 (Oct. 2007): 419-425. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 31 Oct. 2008 .
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist moral theory, meaning the morality of our actions is judged according to the consequences they bring about. According to utilitarianisms, all our actions should promote happiness. For Mill, happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain. In this paper, I will discuss the objection to Utilitarianism that is only fit for a swine, and Mill’s responses to that objection. Those people who reject this moral theory will say utilitarianism does not grant human life enough value compared to that of a pig. Mill gives an effective response and states that humans can and are the only ones that experiences higher pleasures and qualities of life, which make a human's life better than a pig's life.
Within the guidelines of utilitarianism, Singer’s approach appears to harmonize, as he believed the goal in life should be to attain happiness and when the desirable level is reached, one should pay it forward. However, to the dismay of many, he believed that one born to pain and suffrage could not reach such pleasure therefore, had nothing to contribute to the environment and hence, such a life need not be continued and such a life furthered, would only be a strain on happiness. Singer’s judgement on moral behavior was that bringing pain into the world would only consume positive energy and could not further the benefits of happiness as, it is absent. In thinking that one’s existence should benefit environmental ethics as a whole or to those who need it most, Singer has said, “It is not enough that an environmental policy conform to the principles of some or other environmental ethic, it should conform to the correct, or best justified, one.” (p.285) Singer is also inclusive to animals within his statement as he considered animals just as equal in nature as humans. Essentially, he had a vision of animals being free from cruelties and exploitations such as factory farming. Extending happiness, to him, was meant only for people and creatures that could share it and, in accordance to his philosophy, deserved it in efforts to amplify well-being. Singer’s morally confusing ethics have added a unique wing in the developments of environmental ethics that, if anything, indulge in daring thoughts and help refine the purpose of
"Declaration of the Rights of Man - 1789." The Avalon Project. Yale Law School, n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2014.
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.
Animal rights are the privileges for all animals to live freely from any harm. There were
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.
Singer makes a three-part argument for why “All Animals Are Equal”, or at the very least should be granted equal consideration. Firstly, he argues that, assuming all humans are awarded equal rights, there is no single characteristic apart from being human that grants them such rights. Secondly, he argues that awarding rights by virtue of humanity is arbitrary and speciesist. Lastly, he argues that sentience is the only characteristic that should be considered in terms of granting animal rights. This leads him to the conclusion that “if a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration… The principle of equality requires that its suffering be counted equally with the like suffering – insofar as rough comparisons can be made – of any other being”.
Adams). Derrida maintains “meat eating is not a simple, natural phenomenon, but is irreducibly linked in our culture to masculinity along multiple material, ideological, and symbolic lines” (quoted in Adams). Despite the absence of “real” meat, the patriarchal myth of masculinity remains on its website: “men are strong, men need to be strong”, thus men need vegan bacon. With this in mind, PETA’s use of sexually explicit and misogynistic ads makes sense. The group is attempting to reach male meat eaters (“Make your ‘stock’ rise”) and assume the familiar patriarchal subject cannot and should not change. The reiteration of such advertisements show that apparently you have to keep participating in the traditional construction of maleness
Humans place themselves at the top of the sociological tier, close to what we as individuals call our pets who have a sentimental value in our lives. Resource animal’s on the other hand have a contributory value within our lives: they provide us with meat and other important resources. In order to determine the boundaries between how we treat animals as pets and others simply as resources, utilitarians see these “resource animals” as tools. They contemplate the welfare significances of animals as well as the probable welfares for human-beings. Whereas deontologists see actions taken towards these “resources animals” as obligations regardless of whom or what they harm in the process. The objection to these theories are, whose welfare are we