Animals used to have a life worth living, however it is not true anymore; under ill treatment and unjust views, animals are nothing more than tools for the benefit of our society. In this paper, I will analyze Regan’s work on ‘The Case for Animal Rights’ and focus on how it approaches the deontological view of Kant, duty.
First, Tom Regan, Professor of philosophy at North Carolina State University believes there is flaw in our treatment of animals and that it “is wrong because we violate the rights of animals.” (Regan) Factory farming is an example of how animals are just mere existence of our resources. Regan’s goals on animals rights include banning the use of animal in science, factory farming, commercial and sport industry. Basically, …show more content…
His logical view approaches rationality as a goal in our action. His notion of duty means acting upon the sense of duty. A shopkeeper would always keep a fixed price for every customers regardless of their age, background or ethnicity. It is shopkeeper’s duty to act in accordance with duty. Kant also points out a maxim as universal law which every being should abide by. Helping out a person in need is true and it comes natural to most of us. This action is universally accepted and thus, it is a maxim or general truth. Regan is obviously applying this in his animal rights issue. Kant worded it as categorical imperative, a command in which it should be followed with ends to itself. Every rational being should treat another as means to an end. For instance, we do not use mice for scientific research like acidity test because they are the subject of life, deserving means to their ends. Regan is Kantian in his philosophy of animals in which every animal has equal moral status as human. It means animals hold moral status and they are rational beings with ends in themselves. The same goes with activities such as factory farming, whaling and sporting. Regan illustrated his example with mentally retarded or disabled person who has an equal status or respect in our law of morality. Animals similarly are in the same position in this case. It would be immoral to treat animals as our resources, disallowing their rights and rights for a life worth