Tom Regan's Theories On Animal Rights

Growing up on a farm I have always has a different view on animal rights then most people. On are farm we didn’t use the animals for meat and always fed them enough food, and living space to be comfortable, the complete opposite of factory farming. Singer stated in his book “If possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle one human to use another for his or her own ends, how can it entitle humans to exploit non-humans?” (Singer). His statement should make people start to think what we are doing to animals. Peter Singer and Tom Regan’s theory’s on animal rights, I thought back to being on the farm and which theory fit most with how animals should be treated. There are things that could be changed, but addressing the differences
is better to find which theory could fit different lifestyles. In extending rights to animals to domestic animals, Tom Regan and Peter Singer theory works better to capture all domesticated animals rights. According to Regan everything is to be treated equally, not taking into account differences between animals like Singer does. Some terms like domestic animals and consciousness can mean many different things to people.
According to this paper domestic animals will mean farm animals like cows, goats, pigs, and chickens. Consciousness will be little more difficult to define than domestic animals. In a scientific definition “Non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit international behaviors… Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates” (Bekoff). Peter Singers definition of animal consciousness is “anatomical and physiological similarities with us, behavioral parallels in appropriate circumstances, and shared evolutionary history” (WilliamsCollege). With domestic animal and animal consciousness defined to the papers arguments, parts of Singers theory can be addressed. Singer believes that animals have value because of their ability to feel unlike Regan’s inherent value. Also, topic Singer address is the eating of humanly raised animals and farming. Finally, Singer talks about not eating meat from modern meat factories, but from local organic farms as an
alternative. The bases of both theories is how the animals value I given, Singer is selective about how value assigned to animals which gives animals rights fluidity. Singer argues that “if an entity possesses the relevant type of consciousness, then that entity should be given equal consideration when we formulate our moral obligations” (Cochrane). Unlike Regan, who states in his theory “all entities who are “subjects-of-a-life” possess “inherent value” (Cochrane). Singers stance on how expressing animal consciousness give the theory more ability to change, which helps build the rest of the theory. Having the ability to treat animals with equality, not equally makes the idea of giving rights to more groups of animals to understand. Inherent value may seem like a better idea for animal rights, but it creates grey areas for certain species of animals. If all animals have value how would issues like overpopulation be dealt with according to Regan? With the flexibility of Singers idea those issues could be easily solved. For the foundation of an animal rights theory a good place to start is to determine how animal’s conscious is defined, and Singer provided a more encompassing statement. Farming seen as a violation to human rights, but Singer doesn’t believe in all cases it is bad. Farming plays a big part of the world’s economy, but at what cost?
Animals are stuffed into to small crates and fed chemically enhanced food, just to produce large amounts of meat. Singer and Regan both believe in vegan lifestyles but, Singer believes there is alternate ways to eat meat. A way to minimize the suffering of the animals in meat production is by “buying animal products only from producers who allow their animals to go outside and live a minimally decent life” (Singer Factory Farming). Regan on the other hand only believes strictly in a vegan diet, because animals in his view should be used merely as means to humans. “While some people advocate veganism for the environmental or nutritional benefits, Regan believes that veganism is simply a form of ethics. If you want to carry out a morally just life, one devoid of unethical choices, you should refrain from eating other living beings” (McGuiness). Regan’s stance on animal farms is better for the animals but, doesn’t take in account the effect animals have on the grain production of a farm. There are many different purposes animals serve on a farm which help the community as a whole, but Regan wouldn’t agree with using the animals to promote happiness because it makes the animals merely as a means. Again Singer’s theory is more flexible than Regan’s which can make appealing to people concerned with various animal right ideals. Singer argues that not all meat production is bad as long as the animals are humanly
treated but, it isn`t ideal use of animals though. One last argument between Singer and Regan’s theory is the modern meat factories and what should happen to them in the future. As discussed before Singer and Regan’s view on dietary lifestyles are similar yet different. Singer during a presentation at Williams College stated “killing painlessly and treating them humanely, grass fed can permit meat eating” (WilliamsCollege). He doesn’t condemn farmers and meat eater`s moral wrongs as long as they are aware how what they are eating and where it comes from, unlike Regan. Regan believes that there is no alternative to the vegan lifestyle and that meat eaters are in the wrong no matter the situation. Our farm we feed our animals grass and soy, which we grew ourselves from previous years, and the mix fills the animals up faster so they are not eating as much fed if it was single grain mix. The cattle, goats, pigs, and chicken all had perfect living situations and enough feed there was no suffering. We did not raise veal, or cut if our chickens and beaks like factories because they had enough space they weren’t fighting each other. In the community we lived in there were a lot of people concerned with animal rights and how there meat was raised, so we sold locally and donated the extra meat, eggs, and milk to soup kitchen around the township. If Regan’s theory was the foundation for animal right laws feeding the people in the community would have been impossible and non-food usage for the animals wouldn`t have happened. The production of different grains and legumes are helped by the cattle that fertilize the fields and eat the weeds in the soil, which takes away the need for any chemical use. Since there are no chemicals in the fertilizer or pesticides being used there is no run of into local water supplies.