Tom Regan's Theories On Animal Rights

Growing up on a farm I have always has a different view on animal rights then most people. On are farm we didn’t use the animals for meat and always fed them enough food, and living space to be comfortable, the complete opposite of factory farming. Singer stated in his book “If possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle one human to use another for his or her own ends, how can it entitle humans to exploit non-humans?” (Singer). His statement should make people start to think what we are doing to animals. Peter Singer and Tom Regan’s theory’s on animal rights, I thought back to being on the farm and which theory fit most with how animals should be treated. There are things that could be changed, but addressing the differences …show more content…
According to this paper domestic animals will mean farm animals like cows, goats, pigs, and chickens. Consciousness will be little more difficult to define than domestic animals. In a scientific definition “Non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit international behaviors… Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates” (Bekoff). Peter Singers definition of animal consciousness is “anatomical and physiological similarities with us, behavioral parallels in appropriate circumstances, and shared evolutionary history” (WilliamsCollege). With domestic animal and animal consciousness defined to the papers arguments, parts of Singers theory can be addressed. Singer believes that animals have value because of their ability to feel unlike Regan’s inherent value. Also, topic Singer address is the eating of humanly raised animals and farming. Finally, Singer talks about not eating meat from modern meat factories, but from local organic farms as an …show more content…
Animals are stuffed into to small crates and fed chemically enhanced food, just to produce large amounts of meat. Singer and Regan both believe in vegan lifestyles but, Singer believes there is alternate ways to eat meat. A way to minimize the suffering of the animals in meat production is by “buying animal products only from producers who allow their animals to go outside and live a minimally decent life” (Singer Factory Farming). Regan on the other hand only believes strictly in a vegan diet, because animals in his view should be used merely as means to humans. “While some people advocate veganism for the environmental or nutritional benefits, Regan believes that veganism is simply a form of ethics. If you want to carry out a morally just life, one devoid of unethical choices, you should refrain from eating other living beings” (McGuiness). Regan’s stance on animal farms is better for the animals but, doesn’t take in account the effect animals have on the grain production of a farm. There are many different purposes animals serve on a farm which help the community as a whole, but Regan wouldn’t agree with using the animals to promote happiness because it makes the animals merely as a means. Again Singer’s theory is more flexible than Regan’s which can make appealing to people concerned with various animal right ideals. Singer argues that not all meat production is bad as long as the animals are humanly