Tom Regan’s Argument On The Rights Of Humans And Other Animals Essays Example

How Tom Regan proves the moral rights of animals should be regarded. Human and other animal’s right is an issue that has been debated for very many centuries. Over the years of the recorded mankind history, there has been abuse of the rights both for the humans and animals including ruthless killings and oppression. The human rights have taken root and prevent further disregarding of the human lives in the sense that the humans have a right to life and privacy. Therefore, the human rights have been given a heavy regard ever since the establishment of the human rights. On the other hand, animal rights have been given little concerns and they are being mistreated all over the world. The animals do possess life and to some extent, they moral have rights that they do possess with that regard.
According to the utilitarian view of moral rights, an action is deemed moral only when the outcome or effects of the action are considered moral. Therefore, the utilitarian view is forward-looking and morality is determined by the consequences rather than by the actions themselves. In addition, the utilitarian view implies that the morality of an action is considered by the impact on several individuals rather than one particular individual (Regan, 1997). Therefore, if an action is committed, the morality of that particular action is determined by the consideration of the outcome on several individuals rather than one person. Therefore, the positive and negative impact on several individuals is what will put a nail on whether the action is moral or not. This is however not the best path to follow while trying to pin point the morality.
Tom Regan clearly stipulates that the human right of an individual, if the individual victim of the action has any rights, should always outweigh the positive impacts on the many. On this basis, the utilitarian view is indeed impotent on other situations when it comes to pointing out the morality of an action. Considering a situation that four teenage young boys do rape a retarded girl on the streets, the utilitarian view would serve the action committed by the teenage boys to be upright and moral. This is because, the perspective points out the benefits of the many over the negative on an individual. On the other hand, Tom Regan (1997) clearly points out that the human rights should always outweigh the benefits of many on the expense of an individual and therefore the action is not morally upright.
This is indeed a clear picture that the human rights should be considered to be more powerful than what the outcomes might be. That’s the whole point why the human rights were put in place. For instance, the claiming of the body organs of another human being is indeed dependent upon the right to no bodily harm. Therefore the need for permission to get the kidney from another individual is indeed important and it is not permissible for others to take the organs for their own purpose without the victim’s permission. This stand point provides the basis for the necessity of human rights in the society. On the other hand, utilitarians imply that the extraction of the kidneys for instance will save two lives and kill the donor hence saving two lives on the expense of one.
Animal rights are also another important aspect in the sense that they also possess life just as the human beings do and so there is possibility of morality on their side. Animal welfarism implies that the general animal welfare is taken into account and so the animal should not be harmed physiologically unless it is deemed necessary (Regan, 1997). However, just like the utilitarian view, the use of animals for the various researches to upgrade humanity while considering the animal welfare guidelines is moral. This implies that the suffering of the animals does not outweigh the possible benefits from these researches (Regan, 1997). On the other hand, animal rightism implies that the animals do possess rights and using them in research is wrong considering that they do not belong in the lab cages and do not deserve the mistreatment on the labs.
The question of relevance is whether the animals have any rights that should keep them from being used in the biomedical research in the bid to upgrade humanity. Considering that the animals in the labs are being mistreated in the cages being exposed to all manners of harmful chemicals while testing the drugs, their lives have been degraded and assumed to be meaningless to us humans. It is possible to try and understand why humans possess rights. If it were because the human beings were rational and autonomous, then several human beings will be left out like babies, the mentally retarded and the old. It is possible to think that the human beings possess the rights because they are sentient in nature (Regan, 1997). This implies that they are able to feel pain and pleasure and this places more humans within the brackets as rights holders.
With the regard of humans being sentient, many animals can be regarded as having the ability to distinguish pain and pleasure. This does not however seem to be enough to give the animals their rights yet when human beings are exposed to pain, their rights are questioned. For instance, human beings are expected to give their kidneys in terms with his or her consent. Therefore, it is not permissible to take the organs without his or her consent. In addition, the human rights “trump” the possible positive outcomes that may result from donating those kidneys. On the other hand, there are no moral rights for the animals yet they are sentient. Their exposure to unnecessary pains such as the guinea pigs in laboratories is proof of the disregard of these animals’ possible rights (Regan, 1997). For humans, necessary implies that there should be consent from the donor, for instance.
Tom Regan’s philosophical view implies that rights, whether for animals or humans, should always be strongly considered rather than what the outcomes are. Therefore, the use of animals for biomedical research should not give the reason to cause unnecessary pains to the animals, considering that they are sentient beings. Therefore, the animal moral rights that come about as a result of them possessing “life” just like the human beings should be highly regarded similarly to human rights. These animal rights imply that the animals should not be harmed unnecessarily such as being used for research to improve humanity. In other words, the animals can be used for necessities but not exposing them to unnecessary pains. Unlike the animal welfarists, the animal rights are considered everywhere and always outweigh the positive consequences of the action. Therefore, the animal rights should always be considered beforehand.

Reference

Regan, T. (1997). The Rights of Humans and Other Animals. Ethics & Behavior 7, 103-111.
Regan, T. The Future of Anima Rights. TomRegan. 4 October 2015. Web. 25 March 2015. http://tomregan.info/the-future-of-animal-rights/