Tom Regan uses in his article “The Case for Animal Rights” a deontological framework. An example of deontology is if you killed someone for self-defense then it is wrong, we have moral value. I agree to an extent. In “The Case for Animal Rights” by Tom Regan, he states about how he is an advocate for animal rights. Regans goal is to abolish animal in science, stop animal agriculture and end animal sport hunting and trapping. Regan says there’s people who also believe in the same things he does but they do not maintain that goal.
In page 1, lines 25 – 30 Regan discusses how the system that allows animals to be surgically manipulated, eaten, and used for money is wrong. It is wrong, it is allowing humans to view animals as resources, that animals exist for us. He states that no one cares about the pain the animals feel, their loneliness or death because animals’ feelings don’t benefits humans. The only time humans would care about animals’ feelings is when it affects them.
In the same page he talks about factory farming and how it is wrong considering that it takes away their rights. Humans can give these animals more space and more companions or just treat them more humane, but it won’t change the fact that humans are still using animals for their interest.
In the second page lines 3-6, Regan argues that for there to be a change on how human treat animals, there must be a change on humans’ beliefs for there to be a change in their habits.
He also brings that we have indirect duties views to animals. He explained it by using an example if a person kicks your dog it would be wrong, not to the dog but to you because your dog is your property. The only reason it would be considered wrong because humans feelings matter, therefore kicking a homeless dog, it wouldn’t be wrong. Another good part of his book is in page 3 lines 19 – 31, which Regan speaks about contractarianism. Regan points out that the status of animals under contractarian theories is like that of children since they, obviously can’t sign a contract or understand it. But he doesn’t think this is a problem for his theory of animal rights since as stated by him, contractarianism is far from being an acceptable theory of moral duties with respect to humans.
On page 5 lines 10 – 27, Regan explained the cruelty-kindness view. He says we have direct duties to treat animals with respect and not cruelty. He states that there are certain kind of motives for people to be kind like concern or have empathy and it is virtuous. But just because someone is kind does not mean their actions are right or good. Regan disagrees with the cruelty-kindness view because we all have moral duties. He sets an example of a racist and someone who performs abortions, they can be kinds but still violate their moral duties.
In page 7 lines 6- 31 Regan talks about Utilitarianism. One example he used to explain it is the Aunt Bea example. He interpreted that his aunt Bea is a cranky, sour person not ill but rich, He can get her money after she dies. He plans to donate money to a children hospital. He says if he donates the money it will bring the children and parents joy. So, he said if he kills aunt Bea it can benefit him but also the children, family and friends. But he disagrees because killing someone is wrong even if the person is a bad person or is very ill even if helps more than one person.
In the book Regan also speaks about the right views which is on page 8 lines 26-31. Regan discusses how animals don’t have the abilities as humans do, but there are some humans who also lack those abilities, yet they get treated with kindness and respect while animals don’t but even if some humans and animals don’t have those skills, they still have inherent values, to be treated with kindness and respect like all humans do.
Lastly on page 11 lines 4 – 8, Tom Regan speaks about his goals to end all those bad things animals must go through. More people must fight for animals since animals don’t have a voice us, humans can speak for them. The more people try to end animal agriculture, animal in science and animal hunting there will be change but if only a few people do then it will be hard to make changes and no voices will be heard animals will still be a resource for humans.
In my opinion of Regans book “The Case of Animal Right” his framework he uses which is the deontology, I don’t agree with much because if you ever are in danger you have to do anything to survive even if it means to kill someone in self-defense. If there was a way to protect yourself and survive without killing than that would be my first option because yes killing is wrong but for self-defense is acceptable, in which Regan believes it is wrong.
In the second paragraph where Regan states that about humans using animals for their interest. I agree to what he is saying because we humans do use animals. In my family’s county they have their animals in a big land. They can walk around with their partners and they eat natural food, but after a few weeks, months or maybe even years they will end the animal’s life for food. But also, from another philosopher named Nathan Nobis on “Vegetarianism and Virtue: Does Consequentialism Demand Too Little” which he talks about how he disagrees that someone who eats can be equally as good as someone who does not eat meat. Nobis believes being a vegan is healthier than eating meat, one example he says why it is healthier is because you can live 7 years longer than someone who eats meat. Nobis also bring up consequentialism that there can be a good and bad consequentialism. An example of a good consequence is going vegan even if it’s hard for someone who loves to eat meat but for going vegan you help one less animal from getting killed and an example of a bad consequence is eating meat which is satisfying for you but an animal got killed for you to be satisfied.
The fourth paragraph, Regan spoke about the cruelty- kindness view. Which I also agree on what he says. There can be people who is kind but the actions they do is wrong, there’s some people who can be kind and do good actions but just for their ego which I believe if you are kind and do good, it’s to be helpful not for your selfish reasons.
Fifth paragraph Tom Regan explained the Aunt Bea example. This example I also agree with because you can’t take a life of someone just because it can help people. Unless, like I stated earlier if it is for self-defense. Him killing Aunt Bea would be wrong because she’s a human who has the right to live, that’s why if someone who harms another deal with the consequences like jail. But humans should make a law that would protect animals the same ways they to humans because we all humans and animals have the right to live.
The sixth paragraph Regan speaks about the rights views. He talks about animals not having abilities just like some humans don’t. But animals do have some abilities as humans such as listening, having emotions, and learning. Us humans and animals are the same for those reason, they might not be able to talk like us, but animals probably do have their own language within themselves.
The last paragraph just talks about how to end animal cruelty and how to stop using animals as a resource. Which again I agree when he says people must change their beliefs in order to be changes in their habits and in everything. We as humans should protect animals and speak for them because they cannot speak for themselves, also if the more humans stand up for animals right the more possibility for Regans goals to come true.