In Tom Regan's article “The Case for Animal Rights,” he makes the case for the rights of animals on the basis of equal treatment of all living things that possess inherent value. He argues that morality should be centered on the equal treatment of all living entities, rather than the reduction of suffering and the amplification of pleasure. Consequently, Regan's involvement in the animal rights movement is based on three issues: the elimination of all commercial forms of animal testing, animal agriculture and animal hunting. Ultimately, Regan's argument stands as a sound defense for animal rights on the grounds of the inviolable moral rights of all living creatures and a clear demonstration of the wrongness of using animals as a means to an end, regardless of how beneficial that end may be for humans.
The cornerstone of Regan's beliefs towards animal rights is based on the notion of inherent value. In his definition of inherent value, he states that it is the nature of all living beings to have equal value, which rules out the possibility that any one of them can be used merely for the gains of another. If an entity possesses inherent value, then it is morally unjust to utilize the thing as simply an expendable resource. Animals are living entities that have inherent value, therefore the argument stands that it is unjust to use them merely as a mean to an end. Inherent value is a part of every living creature because it is a result of being a subject of a life who has concerns about his or her life. Every animal possesses this quality of concern for his or her life, which means that every animal possesses inherent value. According to Regan, there is no hierarchy of value that is measured based on one's experiences or usefulness to others. Moral rights are therefore not contingent upon usefulness, but simply on the inherent value that exists in all living things.
Regan goes onto further explain that while some animal rights activists believe that the use of animals in science or agriculture can be justifiable if the gains are significant enough, such as in the case of medical research or animal harvesting, Regan believes that in all cases, it is wrong to use animals in any capacity. This is due to what he believes is an inviolable fact that all animals “have certain inalienable moral rights, which humans should not violate" (Gulther 9). The question of whether it is wrong to mistreat animals is not contigent upon “the details that vary from case to case,” but rather the entire system that is at fault (Regan 471). While these details, which range from pitiable to horrific, are effective motivators in the plea for animal rights, it is the fundamental belief that animals are “our resources” that is to blame, and is the source of all wrong acts towards these living creatures (Regan 471). This cannot be solved by merely reducing the suffering of animals with “more humane” conditions; rather, it is only by the complete elimination of such practices that moral wholeness can be attained (Regan 471).
Regan continues with his argument in stating that “people must change their beliefs before they change their habits” (Regan 472). He argues that in order for any real, lasting change to take place in regards to animal rights, a sufficient number of people “must believe in change - must want it” before any laws can be made to protect these rights (Regan 472). According to Regan, this is an arduous task, but not impossible, because of not only the emotion behind animal rights but also the sound reasoning that supports it. Regan defends the mistreatment of animals in saying that “pain is pain wherever it occurs” (Regan 472). To say that someone can harm an animal and have the pain it experiences not mean anything is to indirectly dismiss the pain of a fellow human being. “No rational person can believe this,” Regan claims, demonstrating that the rights of animals belong in the same realm as the rights of human beings when viewing it through the analogy of someone's pet (Regan 472). Regan goes onto explain the faultiness of contractarianism, which is morality based on a collection of rules that are voluntarily agreed to. Due to the fact that animals cannot sign these contracts, they are exempt from the protection that these moral contracts offer. This erroneous nature of this system is found in the fact that we would not deny moral protection to “young children” or “many mentally retarded humans” simply because they could not sign the contract (Regan 473).
In his argument against the cruelty-kindness viewpoint, Regan states that “just as a person's being motivated by kindness does not guarantee that he or she does what is right, so the absence of cruelty does not ensure that he or she avoids doing what is wrong” (Regan 474). He states that it is not wrong to support kindness and be against cruelty, but rather that it is wrong to suppose that this stance towards the two adequately meets the needs between morality's question of right and wrong. He bases this belief on the idea of utilitarianism, which is based on the equal interests of every living creature, as well as the desire “to bring about the best balance between satisfaction and frustration for everyone affected by the outcome” (Regan 476). Regan argues that the moral duty of each individual is in how he or she manages to find this balance for all living entities. This belief is centered on the “uncompromising” principles of egalitarianism, which is the idea that “everyone's interests count and count as much as the like interests of everyone else” (Regan 476). Regan recognizes the potential for opposition to animal rights to state that it is against humans, but he responds to this by stating that it is not more or less, but simply the same treatment that is being asked for. The treatment of animals is therefore less about a matter of kindness and compassion, and is centered directly on matters of justice.
In the analysis of Regan's arguments, Regan's belief that animals should not in any situation be allowed to be seen as merely resources for humans is something that stands on sound footing. The idea that we can exercise power on them merely because we have decided so is not based on any fundamentally plausible beliefs regarding true morality. Moral wholeness relies upon a power that is greater than our own human minds, and cannot be regarded as something that can manipulated according to the fluctuating desires of man. The rights of human beings are inherent and immovable, and the rights of animals should remain the same. Regan's belief that inherent value arises from the simple fact that every living creature seeks after the preservation of his or her own life means that we cannot usurp this right no matter how advantageous it may be for us as human beings. While many humans would attempt to rationalize their behavior by stating that the gains exceed the mistreatment, it is a sound argument on the part of Regan to dismiss the idea that morality can be judged according to some arbitrary scale of acceptability. The one thing that remains is that if some creature has sentience and a heartbeat, that their inherent value—and therefore exemption from utilization—is not something that can be overrode.
Furthermore, Regan's argument that pain is pain regardless of who it is inflicted upon highlights the idea that one cannot categorize sentience beings into ones who matter and ones who do not. In his example of kicking a neighbor's dog, we are able to see not only the emotion but the sound reasoning behind why it is wrong to harm animals. The argument that harming another fellow human being's pet is actually indirectly hurting the owner of that dog is an effective analogy that obliterates any pseudo-hierarchy of who deserves respect and who does not. This is the same vein in which Regan argues that contractarianism is ineffectual in the accurate portrayal of morality, in that it can only be applied to those who are able to sign the contract voluntarily. When arguing that young children would not be exempt from proper moral treatment simply because they cannot personally agree to it, we see the fallacy in having a set of rules that morality is contingent upon the individual agreeing to it. In further examining Regan's arguments, his view that kindness and cruelty cannot merely be ideals to reject and uphold is extremely sound. For example, a woman who is undergoing an abortion may not be cruel and may support kindness in its entirety, but this does not negate the fact that the abortion itself is a cruel act towards the unborn person. The ideas of utilitarianism and egalitarianism are essential components of his valid arguments for animal rights, because they emphasize the reality that morality must be based on the balancing of every living thing's best interests in order to be morally sound.
Regan presents a thorough and effective argument for the defense of equal rights for all creatures. The final step with which he speaks of in the advocacy of animal rights “requires both our passion and our discipline, our hearts and our heads” (Regan 478). This union of both emotion and reason is the foundation of true moral wholeness for not just animals but every living, sentient being. Ultimately, we see that the idea that the treatment of animals is in a separate category to that of human beings is a false and illusory one that can easily be overrode by real-life examples pertaining to persons themselves, and that human and animal morals should always be founded on the same basic principles.
Works Cited
Regan, Tom. The case for animal rights. Berkeley: U of California Press, 1983. Print.
Guither, Harold D. Animal rights: history and scope of a radical social movement. Carbondale: Southern Illinois U Press, 1998. Print.
