Animal Rights and Human Obligations

Introduction 

Animal rights and human obligations towards them has been a topic that is under contentious debate for a long period of time. Some philosophers believe animal have rights while other argue against it. Advocates for animal rights have pointed out that animals have rights just like humans and humans have a direct duty towards animals. Humans are required to treat animals with kindness and compassion and not to be cruel to them. Animals have feelings just lie humans for instance, they feel hurt and pain when kicked. Therefore, it is morally relevant for animals to be treated fairly and with compassion, which is a sign of our ethical treatment towards animals or a demonstration of our humanity. 

Tom Regan description of utilitarianism and why he thinks it fails as a moral theory. 

Utilitarianisms consists of two moral principles. These include the principle of equality, which states that the interest of every person is important and related interests must be considered as having the same significance or weight. For instance whether animal or human the pain of every person matters just like their frustration or pain. The second principle includes utility, which states that your actions should focus towards generating the best sense of balance between frustration and satisfaction to every individual affected by the results. 

The great appeal of utilitarianism is based on its unbending fairness. It discourages discrimination on the basis of sex or race. It states that every person is equal just like everyone else and their interest matters like everybody else’s. It is against detestable discrimination that are justified by some form of contractarianism. Therefore, the fact that utilitarianism does not compromise fairness makes it appealing. 

Utilitarianism is an “aggregate” theory because the frustrations or satisfactions of different individuals are summed. It focuses on satisfying collective interests as opposed to individual interests. Tom Reagan objects to utilitarianism principle of adding the satisfactions or frustrations of different individuals. This is because it shows that we have no value as individuals but rather as a universe thus meaning we have no equal value. Therefore, Reagan points out that as an aggregate theory, the utilitarianism does not promote equal rights of different individuals due to its lack of equal inherent value. 

Regan uses the “Aunt Bae” example to explain why utilitarianism fails as a moral theory. He explains why utilitarianism action of bringing the best balance between added frustration and satisfaction for every individual impacted by the outcome, has a negative consequence. Killing Aunt Bae to generate best outcomes for others is morally wrong because “a good end does not justify an evil means”. Aunt Bae prefers to continue living and taking away her life is doing wrong to her. Sacrificing the life of an individual person to benefit others is morally wrong because we are all equal and the interests of every individual counts. Therefore equality promoted in utilitarianism does not account individual interest or needs meaning we have no value as individuals hence no equal value. 

Explain Regan’s core argument in favor of animal rights 

Regan’s idea of “inherent value” indicate that all individuals be it humans or animals have equal inherent value. He argues that inherent value is equal to individuals experiencing issues or matters of life. Example of these experiences of life include suffering and enjoyment, pain and pleasure, and our frustration and satisfaction. 

Regan equate the ideas of “inherent value” and rights” by explaining that equal inherent value automatically means equal right to respect and treatment. He indicates that animal rights movement is part of the human rights movement thus showing that theory that fights for animal rights also fights the rights of human. Hence, Regan shows that the ideas of inherent value and similar to those of rights. 

Regan thinks the “right view” is the most satisfactory moral theory because it outshines all other theories in the level in it reflects and explains the foundation of our obligation to each other sphere of human morality. It comprises the best arguments and reasons of why animals have rights just like humans. It includes both human rights and animal rights in this scope. Also, it forbids disrespectful treatment of an individual to harvest beneficial outcomes for others. These aspect makes the right view the best moral theory. 

Regan’s argue that attempts to limit the scope of inherent value and rights to humans fails because limiting the scope to humans can be depicted as faulty reasoning. Although animals lack mist of the qualities or abilities that humans have, human beings also lack certain abilities. This therefore does not mean humans have less inherent value and thus have limited right to be treated respectfully like others. Also, the dimension of our life that we experience makes a difference to the quality of life as lived by individuals, which is similar to animals, which should be perceived as experiencing subjects of life. Hence, these factors makes it challenging for Regan to limit the scope of inherent value and rights to humans. 

According to Regan, human beings possess inherent value and therefore rights because the value of a person does not depend on their importance to another person and thus acting immorally is an independent value that infringes the rights of an individual. Thus, this indicates that the inherent value of humans translates to individual rights to be respected and treated fairly. 

According to Regan, non-human animals possess inherent value and therefore rights. He argues that any individuals experiencing subjects of life, which both human and animals do, have inherent value and thus have individual rights. He explains that since non-humans beings have inherent rights of their own, they are entitled to individual rights. 

According to Regan, there are implications of his claim that non-human animals have inherent value and rights. These implications include providing awareness to various field including science and farming regarding the rights of animals. This has enabled both fields to develop clear and uncompromising minds towards fighting for animals rights. It has allowed people to treat animals as creatures with value that should be treated with respect and not to be used in science as experiments. 

According to Regan, the fundamental moral wrong of treating non-human animals in ways that cause them pain and suffering includes treating animals as creatures that lack independent value and using them as resources. This wrong can only be eliminated if we give animals the value they deserves and stop using them as resources. 

Conclusion 

It is evident that animal rights is a crucial topic consisting of proposing and opposing views on the matter. Regan finds utilitarianism theory does not foster equality of rights for both animals and humans. It only focuses on the inherent value and rights of humans. The rights view is a moral theory because it takes into takes into accounts the interest and feelings of both animals and humans. It states that both humans and animals have equal inherent value therefore equal individual right. 

Reference 

Regan, T. (1987). The case for animal rights. In  Advances in Animal Welfare Science 1986/87  (pp. 179-189). Springer, Dordrecht.