{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

11 - #11-A Critique of Regans Animal Rights Theory by Mary...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
#11-A Critique of Regan’s Animal Rights Theory by Mary Warren by Sara Maxfield I. Regan’s Case 1. Strong animal rights position-all normal mammals over a year of age have the same basic moral rights. 2. Subjects-of-a-life have inherent value 3. Harm Principle-we have a direct prima facie duty not to harm beings who have inherent value II. The Mystery of Inherent Value 1. Inherent value 1.A. Not dependent on value of life or experiences 1.B. Not necessarily a function of sentience 1.C. Only applies to the individual (not species, ecosystems, ect.) 2. Inherent value v. moral rights-can something have rights if it does not have inherent value? III. Is There a Sharp Line? 1. Two categories 1.A. Equal inherent value and moral rights as humans 1.B. No inherent value and no moral rights 2. “Subject-of-a-life” status determined by things such as sensations, beliefs, desires, emotions, memories, self-awareness, and conscious anticipation of future events 3.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}