Analysis of Tom Regan's
"A good ends does not justify an evil means" (Olen and Barry, 476). In other words, treating animals as though they are our property, using them only to benefit us and in most cases hurting them is not morally justifiable. In Tom Regan's article "The Case for Animal Rights", he defends the point that the center of our moral concern should not be, as John Stuart Mill claims it should, to diminish suffering and amplify pleasure but, to the contrary, to treat every individual animal in certain a way, despite the consequences. Regan defines inherent value as the state in which a being is more than a mere receptacle, and concludes that all who have inherent value are to have it equally. Regan argues that if a thing has inherent value, it is wrong not to show respect for its value, i.e. to treat it as a mere resource for the use of others, as a means to an end. Animals are included among the things that have inherent value, therefore it is wrong to use them as a means to an end. Regan states that animals are holders of inherent rights, and due to this fact, it is justifiable to completely abolish the use of animals in science, agriculture, hunting, and so forth. Some contend that particular uses of animals are wrong, but that ther
Regan view is that if something has inherent value, it is impermissible not to show respect for this value. To treat it as a mere resource for the use of others, as a means to an end is inherently wrong. It is undeniable that animals belong among the things that have inherent value, therefore using them as a means to our end is wrong. It is obvious from the material presented, that Regan's viewpoint can be backed by solid arguments in every case. We know that animals have inherent value, and we know that everything that has inherent value at all has equal value. To dispute this fact would be to go against the moral and ethical standards that society thrives to uphold. Regan holds three views regarding animals; the indirect duties view, the contractarian view, and the Utilitarian view. According to the indirect duties view, human beings have no direct duties to animals, only duties to those whom own the animals, or to those who are somehow related to the animals in some way. Human beings have no obligation to the animal as such this is the Kantian view. The idea is that only human pain has moral relevance, animal pain has no moral significance. The contractarian view states that morality is only a set of rules that individuals agree to abide by, as if they were all signatories to a contract. This view requires a certain degree of rationality. Only those who are a direct party to the contract have direct duties to the other signatories, meaning that they will have the most rights. Although children cannot legally sign contracts, they are covered because of the adults that care for them. Animals cannot sign so their caretakers can only cover them indirectly. Those animals that are not cared for have no coverage. Traditionally, animals such as cats and dogs will be covered, while undesirable creatures such as rats will be excluded. The Utilitarian view contains two main points, the principle of
Some common words found in the essay are:
Stuart Mill, inherent value, Olen Barry, Animal Rights, , possess inherent value, possess inherent, utilitarian view, indirect duties, contractarian view, human possess, Tom Regan's, indirect duties view, factual differences, regan's article, object regan's, duties view, mere resource means, experiencing subject life, inherent value wrong,
Approximate Word count = 1296
Approximate Pages = 5 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
