Tom Regan Animal Rights Summary
Determining the rights of non-human animals and deciding how to treat them may not be a choice available to our human society. As an advocate for the rights of animals, Tom Reganʻs three main goals are to abandon the use of animals in any scientific research, discontinue all commercial animal agriculture, and to completely terminate both commercial and sport animal hunting. To support these intentions, Regan argues that every human and non-human animal possesses inherent value, which makes them all more than a physical object or vessel. He then states that possessing inherent value allows every human and non-human to have rights of their own. To further his argument, Regan claims that the any human and non-human retaining rights requires equal treatment and respect from others. To conclude his argument, Regan states that due to these reasons, non-human animals cannot be treated as resources and must be treated by humans as equals. In this paper, I object to Reganʻs third premise, which states that non-human and human animals must be treated as equals and with respect, because our communication barrier with non-human animals restricts us from determining their notion of equal treatment or respect, and that attempting to do so could
…show more content…
The first premise of his argument was that all human and non-human animals possess equal inherent value because they are all individuals experiencing life. His second premise is that possessing inherent value demands that these individuals have rights that should not be violated by others. The final premise of his argument is that any individual with rights must be treated equally and with respect. In this paper, I objected to his third premise by arguing that we humans should not interact with animals at all because we are not able to distinguish their perception of equality and
The first premise of his argument was that all human and non-human animals possess equal inherent value because they are all individuals experiencing life. His second premise is that possessing inherent value demands that these individuals have rights that should not be violated by others. The final premise of his argument is that any individual with rights must be treated equally and with respect. In this paper, I objected to his third premise by arguing that we humans should not interact with animals at all because we are not able to distinguish their perception of equality and