Tom Regan The Case For Animal Rights Summary

No compassion, no peace Tom Regan wrote, “The case for animal rights” to people who do not value animals. This is valid because they are living beings. Imagine if we used humans in the place of animals. Regan goes on to tell 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 money” (Regan 673). People except animals being our resources, but are callous to what these animals have to go through. Regan believes people should change their beliefs in order for this to come to an end. Our treatment of animals is erroneous. Even though animals may not have human rights, they still are significant to the world. If enough people change their
He believes that even if you give animals more space, natural environments, and more companions they still lack independent value. Factory farming violates animals rights but traditional agriculture is okay (Regan 679). Not only are these animals in this world, but they are aware of what is going on. Animals must have the same crucial moral rights. Furthermore, Regan goes on to say trap hunting is heart wrenching. To think about the slow, tortuous death of an animal caught in a trap is disturbing. When an animal steps on the trap spring, the trap clamps down on the animal’s limb or paw. The animal then struggles in a great deal of pain to break free. Some animals will attempt to chew off their trapped limbs. They can struggle for hours, or even days, before they get exhausted or even die. Imagine if your pet or even your child were to accidently step on
It’s the system that allows us to view animals as our resources (Regan 679). Some animals eat each other in the wild, but many animals are vegetarians. We do not fall into the same category as animals. We do not have to eat mean to survive in fact, our health would benefit if we took away animal products. Animals have a central nervous system while plants do not. While plants do not have any interests; animals do. They have no conscious and are unable to experience pain. Humans don’t worry about animal suffering or their death. They only live to benefit us. People care about their dogs, or cats. Animals such as companion animals, whales, or the American bald eagle will be protected due to the affectionate interests people have. As for other animals, for example, the farm and laboratory animals the pain they encounter are technically not considered wrong if no one cares about them (Regan 680). Animals do not possess the abilities humans do. They cannot read, write, or drive a car. Some human beings do not have these abilities either. So, does that mean they have less of a right to be treated with the same respect than others? If we stop and recognize that animals are not “things” then we cannot just think of them as just food, experiments, clothing, or entertainment. We can no longer sacrifice them because they are just a taste of meat, or we enjoy going hunting, or because we enjoy the look of fur on our