The Case for Animal Rights

Table of Contents

Introduction
Authors Position
Reconstruction of the Argument
Reaction to the Argument
Conclusion
Work Cited

Introduction

Animal rights belong to one of the most controversial issues discussed in modern society. Many philosophers, researchers, and scientists have explored the question of whether it is morally acceptable for people to use animals for their purposes. Tom Regan who was a US philosopher also contributed to the discussion of this acute theme. In his article The Case for Animal Rights, Regan expressed himself on traditional views on the incorporation of animals for food, tests, and scientific studies. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the philosophers position and the argument in favor of the claim as well as to analyze them.

Authors Position

At the beginning of the work, Regan dwells on the common and widespread opinion on the usage of animals by humans. According to the author, many people who pretend to be for the rights of beasts in fact are not because their views are composed of contradictions (Regan 179). For example, they oppose factory farming but find traditional agriculture a normal practice. Unlike such people, Regan who was a true advocate of animal rights states that hunting and the incorporation of animals in agriculture and for science should be completely abolished (Regan 180). Furthermore, the author claims that the whole system of peoples views on animals as resources they can use for their goals is wrong and thus, should be changed.

Reconstruction of the Argument

Regan proves his position by demonstrating the weakness of the opponents main argument. A large number of thinkers still hold indirect duty views towards animals, which means that only human pain is regarded as relevant and beasts are treated as objects that belong to their masters. Ones kicking their neighbors dog equals damaging a car; the owner, not the pet itself is insulted (Regan 181). Therefore, if no one has an interest in a particular animal, violence against it is fair because people do not have any moral duties towards beasts. Regan sees the sources of this approach in contractarianism; this philosophy suggests that morality consists of rules that people agree to follow as to when signing a contract (Regan 181). Hence, only those who understand and accept the appropriate terms are covered directly and have certain rights.

Others who are not able to participate in the so-called contract relations of morality, including animals, lack their own rights and are protected only if they have patrons. For many people, this theory seems to be completely adequate when it is applied to animals. However, Regan presses the point that young children also fall under the category of creatures who are not able to understand and sign contracts (Regan 182). Following contractarianism, it turns out that hurting orphans without protectors is normal (Regan 182). Nevertheless, when applied to people, this philosophy is considered inhuman and inadequate; and if it is so regarding humans, the same is true about animals as they belong to the same category as young children. Therefore, animals do have their own rights and humans must respect them. This is how Regan demonstrates the weakness of the conventional opinion and proves his claim.

Reaction to the Argument

In my opinion, the argument described above might be seen as a strong one because it supports the authors position. Indeed, since animals are living creatures and can experience a variety of feelings and emotions, it is wrong to perceive them as objects or resources. In this respect, animals are like people; therefore, they should be provided with a set of rights that would remind those of humans. The first step towards achieving this goal is to stop seeing beasts as property people can use.

Conclusion

To sum up, Tom Regan expressed himself against the common opinion about animals as objects or resources created for people to incorporate. His argument was that following contractarianism, young children could also be seen as property without any direct rights, which is completely inadmissible; hence, the above approach cannot be used regarding animals as well. This argument seems to be strong for it supports the authors claim.