Tom Regan Being Against Animal Rights Analysis
Diantae Thomas
March 24 2015
Mrs.David
English 101
Being Against Animal Rights
In the essay, “The Case For Animals Rights”, Tom Regan stresses that, “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 sports or money.” As an animal lover, I would never want to intentionally harm or kill any animal without a justifiable cause. But within reason, animals should not be treated equally as human beings. I believe that it is not inhumane for animals to be eaten, surgically manipulated, or exploited for sports and money as long as it is within basic human ethological boundaries.
Regan expresses that animals are not here for humans to eat them. …show more content…
This view defines a direct duty to be kind to animals, and a direct duty not to be cruel to them (Regan 612). Regan does not believe that this offers an adequate outcome, because although someone may be performing kind acts, they can still be acting immorally (Regan 612). Being for kindness and against cruelty does not automatically settle the issue regarding the moral treatment of animals (612). Regan explains this with the following example: if he were a generous racist his acts would be real and genuine to his race. He would be favoring his own race over others, and although kindness is involved, the acts are not moral because they are rooted in injustice (612). Therefore, this theory fails because although somebody acts out of kindness it does not mean they are doing what is right (Regan …show more content…
Contractarianism is the view that states that those who understand a contract are directly covered and have the writes stated in the contract. Those who cannot sign the contract because they are either physically incapable of doing so, or do not understand, for example children, mentally impaired humans and animals, may still be covered by the contract indirectly, by those who cherish and value them. Therefore they would still receive the same rights stated by the contract. Regan attempts to refute this view by saying that, like children who are the interest of others and are covered by others, animals are also the sentimental interest of others. Therefore “ . . . though they lack rights themselves, [they] will be protected because of the sentimental interest of people”(Regan
March 24 2015
Mrs.David
English 101
Being Against Animal Rights
In the essay, “The Case For Animals Rights”, Tom Regan stresses that, “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 sports or money.” As an animal lover, I would never want to intentionally harm or kill any animal without a justifiable cause. But within reason, animals should not be treated equally as human beings. I believe that it is not inhumane for animals to be eaten, surgically manipulated, or exploited for sports and money as long as it is within basic human ethological boundaries.
Regan expresses that animals are not here for humans to eat them. …show more content…
This view defines a direct duty to be kind to animals, and a direct duty not to be cruel to them (Regan 612). Regan does not believe that this offers an adequate outcome, because although someone may be performing kind acts, they can still be acting immorally (Regan 612). Being for kindness and against cruelty does not automatically settle the issue regarding the moral treatment of animals (612). Regan explains this with the following example: if he were a generous racist his acts would be real and genuine to his race. He would be favoring his own race over others, and although kindness is involved, the acts are not moral because they are rooted in injustice (612). Therefore, this theory fails because although somebody acts out of kindness it does not mean they are doing what is right (Regan …show more content…
Contractarianism is the view that states that those who understand a contract are directly covered and have the writes stated in the contract. Those who cannot sign the contract because they are either physically incapable of doing so, or do not understand, for example children, mentally impaired humans and animals, may still be covered by the contract indirectly, by those who cherish and value them. Therefore they would still receive the same rights stated by the contract. Regan attempts to refute this view by saying that, like children who are the interest of others and are covered by others, animals are also the sentimental interest of others. Therefore “ . . . though they lack rights themselves, [they] will be protected because of the sentimental interest of people”(Regan