| Tom Regan |
Article Index for Tom |
Website Links For Tom |
Information AboutTom Regan |
|
Regan argues that non-human animals are what he calls the subjects-of-a-life, just as humans are, and that, 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. BACKGROUND Regan graduated from Thiel College in 1960 , receiving his M.A. in 1962 and his Ph.D. in 1966 from the University of Virginia. He is currently a professor of Philosophy at North Carolina State University , where he has taught since 1967 . ANIMAL RIGHTS In ''The Case for Animal Rights'', Regan argues that non-human animals are the bearers of moral Right s. His philosophy lies broadly within the tradition of Immanuel Kant , though he rejects Kant's idea that respect is due only to Rational beings. Regan points out that we routinely ascribe inherent Value , and thus the right to be treated with Respect , to Human s who are not rational, including Infant s and the severely mentally Impaired . The crucial attribute that all humans have in common, he argues, is not rationality, but the fact that each of us has a life that matters to us; in other words, what happens to us matters to us, regardless of whether it matters to anyone else. In Regan's terminology, we are each the experiencing "subject-of-a-life" . If this is indeed the basis for ascribing inherent value to individuals, to be Consistent we must ascribe inherent value, and hence moral rights, to all subjects-of-a-life, whether human or non-human. The basic right that all who possess inherent value have, he argues, is the right never to be treated merely as a means to the ends of others. On Regan's view, not to be used as a means entails the right to be treated with respect, which includes the right not to be harmed. This right, however, is not absolute, as, there are times which entail that in order to respect someone’s right not to be harmed, another’s right not to be harmed must be overridden. His philosophy employs principles such as the miniride principle (a.k.a. minimize overriding) and the worse-off principle in order to deal with these situations. The miniride principle basically entails that when faced with the decision of overriding the rights of many innocent beings versus the rights of few innocent beings, when each individual involved would be harmed in a comparably equal way, that we ought to choose to override the rights of the few. The worse-off principle states that when individuals involved are not harmed in a comparable way given a certain course of action we ought to act in order to mitigate the situation of those who would be worse-off. Thus, if the harm of a few innocent beings would render them worse-off than the harm subjected to many innocent beings would render them, then the right thing to do is to override the rights of the many. As this relates to animal rights it is worthy to note Regan’s assertion that an animal’s harm in death is not tantamount to the human’s harm in similar circumstance. This is supposedly because the ending of an animal life entails the loss of fewer opportunities when compared to the loss of a human’s. On Regan’s view then, when having to choose between an animal life and a human life, or even the lives of many animals and a human life, the human life ought always have priority. Supporters argue that Regan's argument for animal rights does not rely on a radical new theory of Ethics , but that it follows from a consistent application of moral principles and Insights that many of us already hold with respect to the ethical treatment of human beings. However, others criticize the lack of certainty with which Regan's "intrinsic value" or "subject-of-a-life" status can be determined, and note that the sufficient conditions he lists — for example, having Sense-perceptions , Belief s, Desire s, Motive s, and Memory — in effect reduce to "similarity to humans". According to Regan, it follows from the ascription to animals of the basic right to be treated with respect that we should abolish the breeding of animals for Food , Animal Experimentation , and commercial Hunting . Regan himself has always been a committed Vegan . WORKS
SEE ALSO
REFERENCES
EXTERNAL LINKS |
|
|