Ethics: Singer vs Regan Environmental ethics is defined: as a part of philosophy which considers extending the traditional boundaries of ethics from solely including humans to including the nonhuman world (Wikipedia). For example‚ this includes the preservation of plants and an increase of animal rights. Peter Singer and Tom Regan both argue that animals need a greater voice than their own in the debate of ethical treatment. Despite their very different philosophical views‚ Singer and Regan want a
Premium Ethics Morality Philosophy
Synthesis Tom Regan‚ Carl Cohen‚ Peter Singer Animal rights are one of the most controversial issues today. There has been endless debate about whether or not animals have rights. Philosophers attempt to come up with the moral conclusions by taking in account the many different standpoints and presenting their related arguments. In his essay “The case of animal rights”‚ Tom Regan‚ a professor of philosophy at North Carolina State University‚ defends his view that the center of our moral concern
Premium Management Organization Marketing
Animals contain traits that humans acquire into their everyday lives‚ yet humans find different approaches to make these animals suffer on a day to day basis. Tom Regan‚ author of Animal Rights‚ Human Wrongs‚ describes various situations in which humans hunt animals for pleasure while Stephen Rose‚ author of Proud to be a Speciesist‚ illustrates why a speciesist like himself would use animals for research. Tom Regan’s describes his main point as to why humans would want to slaughter such precious
Premium Animal rights Rhetoric Speciesism
Peter Singer asserts that utilitarianism implies a moral obligation to be a vegetarian. Utilitarianism holds that the right actions‚ or what we ought to do‚ are those actions that are expected to produce the best overall consequences‚ provide maximum utility‚ happiness or pleasure and minimize pain and suffering. Utilitarians look at the probable consequences of choices and choose their actions based on whatever they believe will produce the most utility or pleasure. Singer claims that if one is
Premium Utilitarianism Ethics Hedonism
possible to respect the rights of animals and eat them for dinner too? According to animal equality website‚ with the exception of fish‚ “over 56 billion farmed animals are slaughtered every year by humans.” Tom Regan writes in The Case for Animal Rights‚ what’s “fundamentally wrong with the way animals are treated” [….] “is the system that allows us to view animals as our resources‚ here for us — to be eaten‚ or surgically manipulated‚ or exploited for sport or money.” (Regan 13) With this harsh reality
Premium Meat Mammal Animal rights
Determining the rights of non-human animals and deciding how to treat them may not be a choice available to our human society. As an advocate for the rights of animals‚ Tom Reganʻs three main goals are to abandon the use of animals in any scientific research‚ discontinue all commercial animal agriculture‚ and to completely terminate both commercial and sport animal hunting. To support these intentions‚ Regan argues that every human and non-human animal possesses inherent value‚ which makes them all
Premium Mammal Human Religion
Animal rights‚ or the establishment and the idea of them being official‚ have become an increasingly interesting controversy for quite some time. The topic seems to question the common morality and ethics of man‚ while simultaneously questioning practices that target humanity’s safety‚ luxury‚ and in some cases‚ survival. In such a debate‚ three articles come to mind. The debating articles: “Cow VS Animal Rights”‚ “Animal Rights‚ Human Wrongs”‚ and “Proud to be a Speciesist” all deliver a very strong
Premium Animal rights Tom Regan
Equal Right for Animals? PHI: 103 Informal Logic Instructor: Courtney Barclay Evan J. McDaniel April 20‚ 2015 Since the first edition of Peter Singer’s book “Animal Liberation” in 1975 the animal rights movement has been a topic of discussion. This movement or the animal liberation movement is an effort designed to protect mammals from being mistreated and regarded as property by humans. Peter Singer is known as a Utilitarian and believes in maximizing individual happiness while minimizing
Premium Animal rights Morality Mammal
“Religion and Animal Rights” by American Philosopher Tom Regan‚ Mr. Regan maintains the position that animals are the “subjects-of-a-life”‚ just as humans are. If we want to ascribe value to all human beings regardless of the degree of rationality they are capable of‚ then in order to be consistent we must similarly ascribe it to non-human animals as well. He effectively uses a pathos and logos approach when he argues to his audience that that all practices involving the mistreatment of animals should be
Premium Animal rights Morality Mammal
money? According to Peter Singer‚ you don’t really have any choice because you’re “morally obligated” to donate far more resources to famine relief and similar causes than what you currently think is enough‚ but without sacrificing anything of equivalent moral importance. In this paper I will analyze this argument and try to show that Singer’s conclusions are correct‚ yet they are not quite as correct as he believes they are. To do so‚ I will try to show that Singer is wrong to think that we have
Premium Poverty Ethics Wealth