Final - Regan would reply that animal testing would not be...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Tom Regan discuses the rights view as it relates to animals in his article entitled “The Case for Animal Rights.” He argues that animals are the “subject-of-a-life” in the same way that a human is the “subject-of-a-life.” Regan includes animals over 1-year old in his evaluation and potential more. By a subject of a life Regan means that a creature has experiences, beliefs, desires, and preferences. It also entails that one acts intentionally with a psychophysical identity over time. Finally, the subject of a life has welfare interest and a memory.
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Regan would reply that animal testing would not be justified regardless of the fact that the drug has high promises in treating adolescent depression. Animals have a right to not be harmed based on the fact that they are subjects of a life just as you and I are subjects of a life. A vivisectionists would likely argue a Utilitarian viewpoint that drug testing is necessary to make sure they are harmful. Non-harmful drugs have a benefit to humankind which far outweighs this right. However, according to Regan risks are non transferrable and cant be...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online