{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

According to Tom Regan

According to Tom Regan - According to Tom Regan there is no...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
According to Tom Regan, there is no logical reason to give higher moral value to human suffering than there is to other animal suffering. Reagan believes that animals possess an innate right to life, not unlike humans, and that no benefit to humankind can trump this right. He gives a few different reasons as to why he feels this way. One way that he gives indirectly is mentioned on page 84. He states the fact that when humans acquire injuries to their brain or spinal cord, certain senses (such as eye sight or touch) can start to diminish. The ability to remember or feel pain are also two things that can disappear when one’s brain or spinal cord is in less than perfect condition. According to Charles Darwin, animals that are most physiological to humans react in the same way. He goes on to say that the central nervous system grants us with the ability to be aware of our surroundings at all times. An important feature in the argument for animal rights, in this case mammal rights, is their psychological complexity. Reagan argues that they are “subjects-of-a-life,” each one being unique. Reagan goes on to state that because what occurs in their life matters to them, then they should be considered to be our equals.
Image of page 1

Info icon This 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 ]}