Animal rights refer to the fact that; considerations should be given to animals as it is, to human beings. Regan rejected what was said by Emanuel Kant that animals are a means to human’s ends, stating that animals should not be used as a means to an end. He argued that animals should not be used in science, commercial agriculture; or for sport hunting and trapping. Regan claimed that moral concerns should be used to treat every individual animal equally, as human beings are treated due to their inherent value. Animals also have an inherent value and hence respect ought to be shown to this value. For example, most people do not show respect to animals based on that they do not have this value; though despite individuals not being equal in intelligence, emotions, and reasoning capacities, are shown equal respect (Waller, 2008).
Regan referred to non-humans as subject-to-a-life, hence bear some rights. He said that humans have moral rights as a result of their cognitive capabilities, which are acquired by some animals, consequently; these animals need to be given the rights given to humans. An illustration for this case is the reality that mentally handicapped individuals seeking medical attention just like toddlers; can not devise moral opinions thus are incapable of deciding between right and wrong. However, they are given these rights; therefore animals that possess the status of moral patients possess moral rights (Waller, 2008).
Regan indicated that humans are treated with respect which involves the right not to be inflicted with pain; since “on account of pain we abstain from noble things”; hence human beings are not regarded as means. In some situations, there may be an overriding of rights and if so; where the harm is not far-reaching the rights are overridden. An example of overriding rights is where the harm to a normal healthy dog is not worse when compared to the harm of the death of a person; who is too old to take care of himself as the dog has higher chances of pleasure than the exhausted person. Regan’s theory of animal rights did not give a clear connection between value and moral rights, as something may possess inherent value but lack a moral standing (Waller, 2008).
On the other hand, Peter Singer employed the basic utilitarian contention to argue that animals have ethically pertinent interests, in virtue of their ability to suffer. He said that the consequence of an act judges its rightness, since “actions are accompanied by pain or pleasure” thus pain should be minimized and pleasure maximized. The utilitarian principle states that everyone’s interests need to be considered equally. Singer argued that pain both in humans and non-humans needs to be put into consideration; even though the capacities of suffering differ. For instance, an animal articulates its pain through crying to pass across a message; so that its condition can be changed. The opinion founded Singer, called for matching concern for the welfare of both humans and animals; even though they can’t be advanced matching treatment. The example he gave; is that of a mouse and a man who both have the interest not to be kicked down, since they both experience pain. On the other hand, a stone does not experience pain and hence has no interest in not being kicked down (Regan, 1985).
Jeremy Bentham argued that anything that experiences pleasure or bears pain counts morally. The utilitarian theory of animal rights agrees with Regan’s theory that animals should not be used as a means to satisfy human ends; as this will inflict pain and suffering to them. Animals suffer pain as well as human beings, even though they do not experience the same fear of expectation as humans or possess the ability to remember the pain vividly as humans do (Waller, 2008).
Reference
Regan, T. (1985). The case of animal rights. New York: University of California Press.
Waller, B. (2008). Consider Ethics: Theory, Readings and Contemporary Issues. New York: Pearson/Longman Publications.