Preview

Summary of "The Case for Animal Rights" Summary and Response Paper. This was written about the story "The Case for Animal Rights" by Tom Regan.

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
684 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Summary of "The Case for Animal Rights" Summary and Response Paper. This was written about the story "The Case for Animal Rights" by Tom Regan.
Summary of "The Case for Animal Rights"

In "The Case for Animal Rights," Tom Regan writes about his beliefs regarding animal rights. Regan states the animal rights movement is committed to a number of goals, including: "the total abolition of the use of animals in science; the total dissolution of commercial animal agriculture; and the total elimination of commercial and sport hunting and trapping. Regan goes on and tells us the "fundamental wrong is the system that allows us to view animals as our resources, here for us--to be eaten, or surgically manipulated, or exploited for sport or money." Once people accept this view of animals being here for our resources, they believe what harms the animal doesn't really matter. Regan explains that in order to have this changed, people must change their beliefs. If enough people, especially people that hold a public office, change their beliefs, there can be laws made to protect the rights of animals.

Regan has two theories. The first he called "the cruelty-kindness view." This states that people should have a "direct duty to be kind to animals and a direct duty not to be cruel to them." He then goes on to explain the differences between kindness and cruelty and cites examples. His second theory is utilitarianism. He states that a utilitarian decides which option is most likely to bring the best results and "the best balance between satisfaction and frustration." The author then goes on talking about utilitarianism, giving examples, an analogy, and other problems with it.

The author argues inherent value. Regan points out animals should be able to experience life with inherent value of their own. Addressing commercial animal agriculture, the author declares "The fundamental moral wrong here is not that animals are kept in stressful close confinement or in isolation, or that their pain and suffering, their needs and preferences are ignored or discounted." Regan continues the only way to right the wrong would be to stop

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Better Essays

    Regan, Tom. "Animal Rights, Human Wrongs." Forming a Critical Perspective. Boston, MA: Pearson Learning Solutions, 2010. 336-40. Print.…

    • 1234 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    He then compares animal rights to extreme moral positions such as Rape, Child Pornography, and Racial discrimination, stating that“. . . when an injustice is absolute, as is true of each of the examples just cited, then one must oppose it absolutely. It is not reformed, more humane child pornography that an enlightened ethic calls for; it is its abolition that is required” (Regan 688). This comparison technique between animal rights and emotionally stimulating topics is an effective use of pathos by association. What Regan is saying is the issue of animal rights is no different than the aforementioned ones. We must be totally against wearing animal skins, hunting animals for sport, and breeding animals for slaughter, not just against one or the other. In his eyes, cows that are slaughtered to make hamburger patties are no different than victims of a violent crime and rape, so it should stimulate the same emotional reaction. This belief is thought of by many to be an “extremist” view of animal rights and not generally accepted. But Regan writes, “There was a…

    • 1452 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    In “An Animal’s Place” Michael Pollan (2002) talks about how he is reading “Animal Liberation” while eating a steak at a restaurant. He then starts to talk about the book and how it talks about giving animals civil rights. He then talks about the people who believe in the civil rights movement for animals and how England has changed their Constitution in order to protect animals. The European and Swiss are trying to also protect the rights of animals. Pollan talks about America still seeing animals as “things” (p.399) but we are changing some of our animal slaughter habits.…

    • 592 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Animals deserve rights because just like humans, they feel excruciating pain, suffer and have feelings. One would argue that animals don’t experience emotions? But the answer is of course they do. It is emotions that allow animals to display various behavior patterns. According to the theory of utilitarianism, all sentient beings should be given consideration in the society and this includes both animals and humans. Also, animals cannot speak for themselves and for this reason they should be treated equally, protected and given the same respect as human beings. Peter singer’s approach also supports the argument on equal consideration in that animals deserve the same respect as human beings but just in a different view. In today’s society humans exploit animals for milk, meat, fur, scientific experimentation etc. and animals are constantly injured or killed. Their pain and sufferings should be taken into consideration, as this unjust treatment is morally unacceptable. Similarly speciesism is an…

    • 476 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Phil. outline

    • 779 Words
    • 4 Pages

    B. Singer then turns to the substantive issue of “what are the implications of utilitarianism for our treatment of animals?”…

    • 779 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Tom Regan's Position

    • 1157 Words
    • 5 Pages

    An Argumentative essay that looks at and breaks down the philosophical difference between Tom Regan’s position on Animal rights and, Peter Singer’s position on Animal liberation as a basis for better treatment of animals.…

    • 1157 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Regan starts with the obvious problem with zoos: they compromise the freedom of animals. Regan believes that confining an animal is permissible if it is in the animal's best interest to do so. For example, if an animal is endangered confining it is justifiable as long as it is returned to the wild after the threat of predation is gone. However, this is not why zoos exist and operate today. Zoos are not being used to house animals that need to be protected but rather to serve a purpose to others. Since these animals are being treated as tools, models, and commodities their basic right to be respected is being violated. Therefore, the rights view provides a definite "no" to the moral question at…

    • 1195 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Animal Rights Theory and Utilitarianism: Relative Normative Guidance, Gary L. Francione, 3 Animal L. 75 (1997) Publish Date: 1997…

    • 1407 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Moral quandaries regarding animals are still demanding the attention of many philosophers as they attempt to modify and inspect the relationship between morality and social policy. Contemporary applications of this issue can range from experimentations on animals for developing medicines (or even cosmetics) to whether human beings should avoid eating animal-based foods. There is a vast spectrum of moral issues that arise with respect to animals. However, most of the morally questionable situations are contingent on one fundamental question: do animals even have moral rights? And if so, to what extent?…

    • 1830 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Taking a Stand Against Peta

    • 2615 Words
    • 11 Pages

    Animal rights debater Stephen R. L. Clark points out, “As humans, we are like the other animals and unlike them, tied to them and separate, in many ways,” (Golding). For example, humans are animals, our nature is an animal nature, our desires are, for the most part, animal desires, and our habit of hunting is like that of other animals. However, what sets us apart from other animals is the fact that we have legal rights (the right to vote) and moral rights (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). The distinction must be made that animals obviously can't have the same rights as humans, because their interests are not always the same as ours, and some rights would be irrelevant to animals. For instance, an animal such as a cat doesn't have an interest in voting and, therefore, doesn't have the right to vote because that right would be as meaningless…

    • 2615 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Animals contribute in many ways to our world. We seem to take for granted the benefits animals can have on us. The benefits animals have on our earth shouldn’t be taken for granted. Without animals, our earth would not receive the essential nutrients it needs to flourish. Establishing animal rights will give animals the love and respect that they’ve always deserved. Animal are not pieces of meat, they are a vital resource to the nutriment of our earth. We have been given the power to protect animals and give them rights of their own. We should not ignore the needs of animals. Animals have benefited us in ways no human can. It is our moral duty as humans to take a stand for animals and give them the rights they deserve. At this very moment animals are being abused and carelessly slaughtered. Now is the time to end the abuse of animals and give them the rights that benefits us…

    • 1733 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Argument Readings

    • 732 Words
    • 3 Pages

    In “Who Are You Animal Rights Activists Anyway?” by Tom Regan, he was telling the general public about the views of animal rights activists. Regan has written several essays on animal rights and is recognized as a key intellectual leader of the animal rights movement and has also written several books on the subject which makes him very credible in his writings. Regan’s argument is one of change, he’s trying to get us to change our views and persuade us that not all animal right activists are extremists. He starts his essay by telling us that “the world will have to change once we learn to treat animals with respect”, he goes on to tell us that “being kind to animals is not enough, avoiding cruelty is not enough and that the truth of animal rights requires empty cages, not larger cages.” I found his essay hard to keep my attention by the way he jumped around.…

    • 732 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Ethics of Eating Meat

    • 466 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Norcross explains the moral dilemma placed upon consumers who are aware of the inhumane practices of factory farms. Norcross concludes, through the analogy of Fred, that consuming factory-farmed meat is morally unjustifiable. I, however, do not believe that loving treatment of animals should be enough moral compensation to justify the unnecessary killing of an animal. Say for instance you own a pet cat and lovingly raise it with care and compassion, giving it ample room to grow and play. A few years later when the cat is fully grown, you decide to humanely put it down for the enjoyment of eating. This scenario is morally identical to the killing and consumption of humanely raised farm animals. In both cases you are prematurely ending the life of an animal to satisfy your pleasure of consuming meat.…

    • 466 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Determining the rights of non-human animals and deciding how to treat them may not be a choice available to our human society. As an advocate for the rights of animals, Tom Reganʻs three main goals are to abandon the use of animals in any scientific research, discontinue all commercial animal agriculture, and to completely terminate both commercial and sport animal hunting. To support these intentions, Regan argues that every human and non-human animal possesses inherent value, which makes them all more than a physical object or vessel. He then states that possessing inherent value allows every human and non-human to have rights of their own. To further his argument, Regan claims that the any human and non-human retaining rights requires equal treatment and respect from others. To conclude his argument, Regan states that due to these reasons, non-human animals cannot be treated as resources and must be treated by humans as equals. In this paper, I object to Reganʻs third premise, which states that non-human and human animals must be treated as equals and with respect, because our communication barrier with non-human animals restricts us from determining their notion of equal treatment or respect, and that attempting to do so could…

    • 990 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    He argues that not only humans have rights but animals have rights as well. Regan adds that “To be for animal welfare, as distinct from merely being against animal cruelty, is to believe that we may have a duty to improve the quality of animal life, by ensuring – so far as this is possible – that other animals are the beneficiaries of what is good for them not merely that we should avoid being cruel to them” (Regan p. 66). He emphasizes that “The welfare of nonhuman animals is important. But it is not the only thing that is important” (Regan p. 67). Regan’s aim is to simply abolish, not reform, the current system of human and nonhuman relations. He argues that it is morally wrong for humans to use animals for their needs, stating that this action, as a result, deprives animals of their individual rights. Regan asserts that all animals have intrinsic value because they have feelings, desires, and preferences. As a result of his beliefs Regan feels that the animal rights movement is no different than the human rights…

    • 758 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays