Similarities Between Peter Singer And Tom Regan
Environmental Ethics: Singer vs Regan Environmental ethics is defined: as a part of philosophy which considers extending the traditional boundaries of ethics from solely including humans to including the nonhuman world (Wikipedia). For example, this includes the preservation of plants and an increase of animal rights. Peter Singer and Tom Regan both argue that animals need a greater voice than their own in the debate of ethical treatment. Despite their very different philosophical views, Singer and Regan want a similar outcome when dealing with environmental ethics it today’s society. Peter Singer, an Australian philosopher, takes a utilitarian view on nonhuman liberation. In other words actions should be judged strictly by their consequences. For example if an action benefits the largest number of individuals, over a lesser number,
…show more content…
He argues that not only humans have rights but animals have rights as well. Regan adds that “To be for animal welfare, as distinct from merely being against animal cruelty, is to believe that we may have a duty to improve the quality of animal life, by ensuring – so far as this is possible – that other animals are the beneficiaries of what is good for them not merely that we should avoid being cruel to them” (Regan p. 66). He emphasizes that “The welfare of nonhuman animals is important. But it is not the only thing that is important” (Regan p. 67). Regan’s aim is to simply abolish, not reform, the current system of human and nonhuman relations. He argues that it is morally wrong for humans to use animals for their needs, stating that this action, as a result, deprives animals of their individual rights. Regan asserts that all animals have intrinsic value because they have feelings, desires, and preferences. As a result of his beliefs Regan feels that the animal rights movement is no different than the human rights
He argues that not only humans have rights but animals have rights as well. Regan adds that “To be for animal welfare, as distinct from merely being against animal cruelty, is to believe that we may have a duty to improve the quality of animal life, by ensuring – so far as this is possible – that other animals are the beneficiaries of what is good for them not merely that we should avoid being cruel to them” (Regan p. 66). He emphasizes that “The welfare of nonhuman animals is important. But it is not the only thing that is important” (Regan p. 67). Regan’s aim is to simply abolish, not reform, the current system of human and nonhuman relations. He argues that it is morally wrong for humans to use animals for their needs, stating that this action, as a result, deprives animals of their individual rights. Regan asserts that all animals have intrinsic value because they have feelings, desires, and preferences. As a result of his beliefs Regan feels that the animal rights movement is no different than the human rights