Why does Tom Regan believe that animals as well as humans have rights?

In “The Case for Animal Rights,” Tom Regan takes a Kantian approach and believes that like humans, animals should be treated as ends-in-themselves. Regan argues that because animals have an inherent value, they shouldn’t be used in order to benefit human lives.

What does Tom Regan argue?

Tom Regan argues that human beings and some non-human animals have moral rights because they are “subjects of lives,” that is, roughly, conscious, sentient beings with an experiential welfare.

Why does Regan dismiss the cruelty kindness view?

Why does Regan reject the cruelty kindness view? We can be kind and still violate our moral duties. Also, even if we are not cruel, we can still violate our moral duties.

What does Regan find to be fundamentally problematic with our treatment of animals?

According to Regan, what is most fundamentally wrong about the way we treat animals? We owe nothing to animals themselves, but we do have duties, such as respecting private property, that indirectly bear on our treatment of animals.

Why do animals not have rights according to Cohen?

Animals do not have such moral capacities. They are not morally self-legislative, cannot possibly be members of a truly moral community, and therefore, cannot possess rights.

Was Tom Regan a vegan?

Tom Regan became a lacto-ovo-vegetarian in the summer of 1972 and transitioned to being a complete vegan shortly thereafter. During his time working as a butcher in his college years, Regan never saw the negative impact of his lifestyle.

Is Tom Regan an abolitionist?

Abolitionists believe that everyone who can live vegan is therefore morally obligated to be vegan….Abolitionism (animal rights)

What did philosopher Tom Regan believe?

Tom Regan is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at North Carolina State University. He is also an uncompromising ‘Animal Rights Advocate’ (ARA). In his latest book Empty Cages – Facing the Challenge of Animal Rights he argues that human beings should not enslave non-human animals and use them as means to their ends.

How does Regan regard what he calls the cruelty kindness view of animal rights?

Cruelty-kindness view: Our behavior toward animals is acceptable as long as we are kind and not cruel to them. Regan points out that having a kind motive or failing to be cruel is no guarantee of right action.

Why does Regan reject the view that we can have only indirect duties to nonhuman animals?

Regan believes it is a mistake to claim that animals have an indirect moral status or an unequal status, and to then infer that animals cannot have any rights. He also thinks it is a mistake to ground an equal moral status on Utilitarian grounds, as Singer attempts to do.

Who is the author of the case for animal rights?

The Case for Animal Rights. The Case for Animal Rights is a 1983 book by the American philosopher Tom Regan, in which the author argues that at least some kinds of non-human animals have moral rights because they are the “subjects-of-a-life,” and that these rights adhere to them whether or not they are recognized.

What was Regan’s position on the rights of animals?

Regan’s position is Kantian (though Kant himself did not apply it to non-humans), namely that all subjects-of-a life possess inherent value and must be treated as ends-in-themselves, never as a means to an end.

What was Peter Singer’s position on animal rights?

The moral philosopher Mary Midgley notes in the London Review of Books that Regan builds on the work of Peter Singer, commenting that “utilitarianism [Singer’s position], though strong today, is only one side of our current morality”. Midgley states, “Essentially I think he [Regan] is right