"A good ends does not justify an evil means" (Olen and Barry, 476). In other words, treating animals as though they are our property, using them only to benefit us and in most cases hurting them is not morally justifiable. In Tom Regan's article "The Case for Animal Rights", he defends the point that the center of our moral concern should not be, as John Stuart Mill claims it should, to diminish suffering and amplify pleasure but, to the contrary, to treat every individual animal in certain a way, despite the consequences. Regan defines inherent value as the state in which a being is more than a mere receptacle, and concludes that all who have inherent value are to have it equally. Regan argues that if a thing has inherent value, it is wrong not to show respect for its value, i.e. to treat it as a mere resource for the use of others, as a means to an end. Animals are included among the things that have inherent value, therefore it is wrong to use them as a means to an end. Regan states that animals are holders of inherent rights, and due to this fact, it is justifiable to completely abolish the use of animals in science, agriculture, hunting, and so forth. Some contend that particular uses of animals are wrong, but that there are uses that are morally permissible, especially when important human values are at stake. Regan believes that using animals as resources for our exploitation is morally unjustifiable, and the entire system of our attitudes towards animals is wrong.
             Regan holds three views regarding animals; the indirect duties view, the contractarian view, and the Utilitarian view. According to the indirect duties view, human beings have no direct duties to animals, only duties to those whom own the animals, or to those who are somehow related to the animals in some way. Human beings have no obligation to the animal as such this is the Kantian view. The idea is that only human pain has mor...