Tom Regan , in his essay " The case of animal rights", which was taken from the original book " In defense of animals" written in 1985, argues that the focus of our moral concern should not be to minimize suffering and maximize pleasure but to avoid treating individual animals ( human and nonhuman alike) in certain ways regardless of the consequences. He contends all animals that are the experiencing subjects of their own lives, have inherent value. They like humans deserve what we called Kantian respect.
             In this entertaining view of animal rights, Regan defends his position by criticizing contractarian views of morality, which deny that non human animals can have rights. According to him contractarianism, states you have no duty directly to your dog or any other animal, not even the duty not to cause them pain. Regan states that his duty not to hurt them is a duty he has to those people who care about what happens to them. He argues that some lives of creatures with the right to life are more valuable than others. All lives that have inherent values are equal, and for people of contractarian persuasion it must be stated that more refined, subtle and ingenious varieties are possible.
             Regan goes on to support his opinion by discussing and explaining the rights view, as he likes to call it. He explains that the rights view is rationally more moral, by every means possible. It states that the animals who have inherent value should be treated as such with more kindness and care, like you would a human being. Not every human meets certain rights such as intelligence or autonomy or even reason, but we consider them to have value. Just as animals have value. Regan, himself adds a much stronger view, he explains that it is not to say that practices that involve taking the lives of animals cannot possibly be justified, in order to approve such a practice it would have to be for a greater good, as would be t...