The "target" of my critique was Tom Regan, and in particular his book All That Dwell Therein 2 the parenthetical numbers below are page references to that book. Nonetheless, much of what I present below applies as well to the views of Peter Singer.
He also argues that, while being the subject-of-a-life is a sufficient condition for having intrinsic value, it is not a necessary one: If an individual possesses a moral right, that right may not be sacrificed even if the consequences of doing so are appealing.
Those who satisfy the subject-of-a-life criterion themselves have a distinctive kind of value — inherent value — and are not to be viewed or treated as mere receptacles. Similarly, animals do not have the capacity to sign contracts, so why should children have an advantage over animals? Furthermore, he makes the argument that if he were to approach animal rights through a contractarianism, when somebody kicks your dog, it is morally wrong because it upsets you but not the dog.
Intuitively, this does not make sense, and contractarianism can be dismissed. His argument against utilitarianism is a bit more complicated.
She prefers to go on living. She is also rather rich. I could make a fortune if I could get my hands on her money, money she intends to give me in any event, after she dies, but which she refuses to give me now.
Many, many children will benefit from my generosity, and much joy will be brought to their parents, relatives and friends. Would it be okay to do so? Most people, he assumes, would say no. Midgley states, "Essentially I think he [Regan] is right Persuasion is needed, not in the sense of illicit emotional pressure, but of imaginative restatement.
It is too abstract and too contentious.
|Defending Animal Rights by Tom Regan | Issue 36 | Philosophy Now||Applied Ethics Regan v Singer: Animal Rights Regan's most recurrent strategy for validating animal rights is to demonstrate that if human beings can be said to have rights, some animals can likewise be said to have rights.|
As tends to happen with American academic books in the Rawlsian tradition, the relation between theory and practice is oversimplified. There is too much attention paid to the winning of arguments and too little to the complexities of the world.
He does not find it hard to show that the notion of humanity which this Kantian view encapsulates is far too narrow, hard to defend at any time, and increasingly so today.
Reversing the traditional approach, he puts the burden of proof on those who claim that some such beings do not matter"  With regard to future debate, Midgley states: And — to consider the future — we urgently need now to move the controversy in the direction of asking what we mean by rights and by equality, rather than continuing with any more simple yes-or-no battles about whether animals have them.The rights view categorically opposes and seeks to abolish animal experimentation, animal agriculture, hunting, etc.
c. Tidying up these institutions (by providing larger cages for animals, etc.) is not sufficient, because they treat animals as mere means to human ends which violates their rights and thus these practices should be abolished.
Jan 13, · Peter Singer is Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and is considered one of the world’s most influential people. His book Animal Liberation () is the most influential book written on the subject, having in a sense started the animal rights movement.
Singer argues that animal liberation today is analogous to racial and gender justice in the. Regan, Tom. The Case for Animal Rights. University of California Press, edition (updated with a new preface) Regan, Tom.
"The Case for Animal Rights", in Tom Regan and Peter Singer (eds.). Animal Rights and Human Obligations. Prentice Hall, Rowlands, Mark. Animal Rights: Moral Theory and Practice.
Palgrave MacMillan, The Case f()r Animal Rights. TOM REGAN.
Tom Regan is professor emeritus of philosophy at North Carolina State University. He has written or edited more than 20 books and published numerous articles.
His books on the TOM REGAN • The Case for Animal Rights Regan v Singer: Animal Rights Regan's most recurrent strategy for validating animal rights is to demonstrate that if human beings can be said to have rights, some .
Tom Regan’s, The Case for Animal Rights, and Peter Singer’s, The Animal Liberation Movement, both advocate for the rights and equal treatment of animals through various leslutinsduphoenix.com seek to change the cruel and brutal treatment of animals present in the world today but the method in which they wish to reach this goal differs.