Tom Regan and the Case for Animal Rights - Philosopher, Tom Regan, takes an extreme position regarding the rights of nonhuman animals. According to Regan, nonhuman animals are very much like humans: both have inherent value. Like humans, nonhuman animals are valued as beings that are conscious, able to feel pain, and having preferences and expectations. (It is not what they think or expect, but merely having this ability provides them with rights not to be used as ‘mere means’.)
- Regan’s Argument for Animal Rights:
- Human and non-human animals have equal inherent value.
- If something has inherent value, then it must treated with respect.
- Animals must be treated with respect. (1,2)
- Anything that is deserving of respect cannot be treated as a ‘mere means’/resource.
- Therefore, we it is morally wrong to commercially farm, perform experiments on, or commercially hunt animals. (3,4)
Regan's Goals:
- the total abolition of the use of animals in science
- the total dissolution of commercial animal agriculture
- the total elimination of commercial and sport hunting and trapping
- In this paper, present and explain Regan’s argument. Evaluate Regan’s argument by choosing one premise that appears to be extremely weak, and develop an objection to that premise, explaining in detail how your objection engages the premise. Lastly, put yourself in Regan’s shoes and offer a possible response that would be consistent with his view.
Requirements:
- 12 pt font, double space, typed, stapled
- Use at least two external sources (cite appropriately)
- Include a bibliography
The
main claim (thesis) of my paper is:
The
premises I use to support the truth of my main claim are:
