Tom Regan
Tom Regan- "The Case for Animal Rights"Although the animal rights-movement was originally started by Peter Singer, it was Tom Regan who came up with the most uncompromising ideas and gave the movement its name. In his book, which came out under the University of California Press in 1983, Regan argues that humans and animals have equal inherent rights. However, before explaining his own philosophy, he explains four other theories that exist about animal rights. These four theories are those of indirect duty, contractarianism, kindness/cruelty and utilitarianism. After having elaborated on these theories, he explains the fallacies of these theories with regard to animal rights.The first theory Regan deals with is that of indirect duty. In this theory, we have no direct duties towards animals, we do not owe them anything and we cannot inflict injustice upon them. Animals are only owed consideration to the extent that actions toward them have an effect on the people who care for them He illustrates the falsity of this theory with an example: your neighbour kicks his dog, yet according to the previous assumption this is not wrong, as the owner of the dog is not harmed emotionally or physically. This system has two basic flaws:
Here, he gives the example of killing his bad-tempered , old and rich aunt who does not want to die yet. Nevertheless, this would be a morally unjust act. First of all, Regan does not define the idea of being an experiencing subject in a way that it can account for all kinds of animals. Although this person is not clearly an experiencing subject, he or she should still be considered to have an inherent value as one might never know when that person would regain consciousness. Lastly, an act which is not motivated by cruelty may not still be a wrong act. It also denies that ends can justify morally wrong means. This intrinsic value entitles us to equal respect, and failing to do so is to act in an immoral way towards this person, as it violates that individual's rights. Those who are not capable of understanding terms of the contract, such as children, may be indirectly covered, but only if there is a covered person who cares for the uncovered person. Therefore, this theory is also not justifiable. All those who understand and accept the rules and terms of the contract are directly covered. The keyword in this theory is intrinsic value, which is present in all of us in an equal amount. However, inheriting her money would mean that he would be able to do a lot of good for society, which would make everyone happier. This theory is also weak, as, due to distorted perspectives people can believe to do good while in fact they are committing cruel acts. The first principle demands the recognition that everyone's interests are treated as equal, and that similar interests be counted as having similar importance.
Common topics in this essay:
Theory Justice,
California Press,
Tom Regan,
Animal Rights,
intrinsic value,
experiencing subject,
indirect duty,
theory regan,
duties towards,
animal rights,
indirect duty theory,
direct duties towards,
duty theory,
theory regan deals,
own theory,
direct duties,
regan deals,
|
Acceptance Essays
