March 24 2015
Being Against Animal Rights
In the essay, “The Case For Animals Rights”, Tom Regan stresses that, “the fundamental wrong is the system that allows us to view animals as our resources, here for us- to be eaten, or surgically manipulated, or exploited for sports or money.” As an animal lover, I would never want to intentionally harm or kill any animal without a justifiable cause. But within reason, animals should not be treated equally as human beings. I believe that it is not inhumane for animals to be eaten, surgically manipulated, or exploited for sports and money as long as it is within basic human ethological boundaries. Regan expresses that animals are not here for humans to eat them. He states, “A veal calf killed to be eaten after living in close confinement is viewed and treated in this way: but so. Is another who is raised (as they say) “more humanely” (Regan 609). I am against this because, without animals we as human would not have any food to eat. Most food that humans consume are considered beef, pork, chicken, and fish because of protein. These animals are here for us to eat them. Many philosophies are pushed because of this contribution. Animal rights are abandoned because of the animal agriculture. Regan continues by explaining his view against the Cruelty Kindness View. This view defines a direct duty to be kind to animals, and a direct duty not to be cruel to them (Regan 612). Regan does not believe that this offers an adequate outcome, because although someone may be performing kind acts, they can still be acting immorally (Regan 612). Being for kindness and against cruelty does not automatically settle the issue regarding the moral treatment of animals (612). Regan explains this with the following example: if he were a generous racist his acts would be real and genuine to his race. He would be favoring his own race over others, and although kindness is involved, the acts are not moral because they are rooted in injustice (612). Therefore, this theory fails because although somebody acts out of kindness it does not mean they are doing what is right (Regan 612). Regan uses John Rawls theory of Contractarianism and explains why this theory would not fit the requisites when trying to argue that animals do not have rights. Contractarianism is the view that states that those who understand a contract are directly covered and have the writes stated in the contract. Those who cannot sign the contract because they are either physically incapable of doing so, or do not understand, for example children, mentally impaired humans and animals, may still be covered by the contract indirectly, by those who cherish and value them. Therefore they would still receive the same rights stated by the contract. Regan attempts to refute this view by saying that, like children who are the interest of others and are covered by others, animals are also the sentimental interest of others. Therefore “ . . . though they lack rights themselves, [they] will be protected because of the sentimental interest of people”(Regan 611).
We all have the choice to choose what we want to believe; but, there is no denying that hunting, eating and using animals for sport and our entertainment is morally wrong. It is wrong because they are a life. They feel, birth, and nurture their babies; they hurt when pain is present, and when their wounds are treated, they heal just like humans. I agree with Regan’s statement “what’s wrong—fundamentally wrong—isn’t the details that vary from case to case. It’s the whole system,” because the truth is, we tend to become aware of a situation only when one act is brought up to the public. What we don’t realize is that this happens all the time; its been going on and continues to do so. Animals should not be treated as resources here for us to eat and surgically use for our needs or exploited for sport and money (Regan 609). According to Regan’s points...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document