Tom Regan argues in his article that animals deserve rights similar to humans. He believes that animals should not be used for food, experimentation, or sport because they can experience pain and pleasure like humans. Regan rejects views like utilitarianism that do not consider individual rights. He proposes a "right's view" where all living things deserve equal respect for their lives, regardless of species. While finding truth in Regan's view that all life deserves respect, the author raises questions about its practical implications for issues like eating meat, dealing with pest animals, and building infrastructure.

1. 1 Smith
Leavell Smith
Philosophy
Prof. Tucker
November 24, 2015
The Question of Animal Right’s an Essay on Tom Regan’s Article: Animal Rights
In Tom Regan’s “The Case for Animal Rights,“ he argues for the complete abolishment
of animals being hunted for sport, grown for agricultural profit, and used as subjects in
laboratory experiments. Through comparison and thinking experiments Regan explains his
position on the matter. His right’s view, he proclaims to be the most morally satisfactory theory,
details the responsibility we all hold amongst ourselves to one another as conscious living beings
who feel pain and frustration. The right’s view disposes of the idea of utilitarianism, which he
believes allows for systematic omission of certain groups such as, racism, sexism, and
speciesism. This shall be where i make my stand.
Regan argues that each life holds the same amount of substantial weight and should be
respected as such without bias. Regardless of the race, sex, gender, and species every living
being deserves an equal amount of respect for their life. He goes on to say that some people may
argue this idea by stating that people hold higher intellect than the animals and that is why a
person’s life is more important that an animal’s. Regan combats this idea by mentioning the
millions of people who suffer from some one more mental illnesses, who of which can not
provide for themselves. Thus they must be cared for by someone else, much like your household

2. 2 Smith
pet. He goes on to mention children in this same category because they too are unable to provide
for themselves and must be taken care of.
So if you do harm to a dog, which I do not advocate, you are actually doing harm to the
owner not the animal because you are then harming the owner’s property. The same can be said
for doing harm to a child, the parents feelings are taken into consideration over the child itself.
This idea, Regan states, does not maintain a conscience effort to respect the being which is the
animal or child. Both are being who in which have the ability to feel pain and frustration.
To demonstrate this idea Regan visits the idea of contractarianism which states that an
action is morally permissible as long as those who agree to the contract see the action as moral.
He goes on to say this idea cast aside the rights of those who are unable to sign a contract or
agree to its terms (ex. children and animals). This idea would only preserve the ideas of the
people who agreed to the contract, disregarding the lives of those who could not do so. Therefore
an action could be immoral if, and only if one or more of the contractors felt as such.
Regan visits the idea of utilitarianism, which he describes as aggregative, as one that does
not take into account the rights of animals because the subject does not have value. Actions must
be based on the best outcome for everyone who may be influenced by the action. The feelings of
others both good and bad must be weighed equally when making any decision and only then can
a decision be made. This idea is expressed in his Aunt Bea analogy: you have a wealthy relative
named Aunt Bea. She has plans to pass her well wealth on to you when she dies. For one reason
or another you feel you need the money now. With help from her doctor you derive a way to kill

3. 3 Smith
Aunt Bea and gain wealth. To avoid a large amount of taxation from the government you donate
a heavy sum to a local children’s hospital.
Regan then ask, are your actions immoral for killing Aunt Bea? Even if your actions
actually helped a bunch of sickly children? Regan goes on to say in regards to utilitarianism that
though the your actions may have been beneficial to the children. The means in which the
outcome was obtained are not morally admissible. Hence, utilitarianism is not the philosophy
that best describes his view on animal rights.
The right’s view, Regan describes, is his own philosophical idea which he describes as
the most morally satisfactory theory, in principle it denies all facets of discrimination whether it
be by race, sex, or species. It denounces the idea of an action being moral based on the outcome,
regardless of the events that took place in order to achieve that result. His right’s view, describes
every living being as an inherent subject of life experiencing pleasure, pain, enjoyment, and
suffering. He then states that with these traits each living individual’s life must be respected.
With this idea in mind regan calls for the abolishment of animals being used as subjects for
laboratory experimentation, as does he call for the end to animals being used for agricultural gain
and being hunted for sport. Regan concludes by saying that only through the abolishment of
these vices can the right’s view truly be obtained.
The principle idea of Tom Regan’s right’s idea I believe holds some truth. I agree that
every living thing has a need to survive, feels pain, satisfaction, and suffering. These theories
hold true regardless of what creature you chose to observe. Each species takes the necessary
steps to allow their young to be able to to survive, whether it be through evolution or (in the case

4. 4 Smith
of the human race) teach young the tools needed to avoid death. I can see from the tone of the
writing that Mr. Regan takes a lot of pride in his theory. His principle idea is a good one in
theory but it raises the case for questions such as: First, do you meat? If an animal invades your
home do you remove it, or do you find another space to inhabit? If an animal’s natural habitat is
the wilderness are you against roadways being built?
I will now explore the details of my matters of contention. Mr. Regan called for the
absolute abolishment of animals being grown for agricultural profit. So then I ask, does he eat
meat? I saw no mention of his eating habits in the article. If so, is he going into the wilderness
himself hunting and fishing as a means to obtain the protein the body needs? Or does he mosey
into his local grocery store, and like the rest of us, pick up a pack of meat thinking, “Yeah, this
one looks good.” If that were the case then I do not understand how, this principle could even be
relevant.
Regan stated that every life should be respected. I agree, but based off of his principles
of the right’s view, if a find a colony of mice in my home am I morally obligated not to kill it?
The theory states that my life’s value does not outweigh that of the rodent. So, does this mean
that I am to pack my things and move, as to allow the mice to flourish. Or can I call the
exterminator to rid myself of the mice because they have then obstructed my ability to live
comfortably in my space of inhabitants? With the right’s view in mind, it seems that I would be
obligated to move.
Roadways are a part of our everyday life as human beings. They are the means for us to
travel. They are used to get from point A to point B, but an if an animal’s habitat is the
wilderness should we not build roadways? With that said should we not drive cars at all? That

5. 5 Smith
would mean riding a bike or in some cases walking through bushy terrain in an attempt to not
infringe upon the animals who may live in that area. This does not seem like a plausible idea. I
can not speak for other people but I do not think I am willing to walk through a forest with bears,
snakes, and cougars, simply to get to and from work each day.
My last two points were for you to understand how I perceive the principles of the right’s
view. Yes we as the human race, the top of the food chain, and morally conscious beings are
compelled to be mindful of how our actions and activities may influence the world around us.
We must remain steadfast in our efforts to protect the environment. Over history our actions, and
our actions alone have proven to cause much change to the environment on a major scale in a
rather short time. So the environment must be given the proper respect in order for it to continue
to sustain life. Or pretty soon we could be without it completely, but that’s another paper.