In Regan’s article “The Case for Animal Rights” he makes the claim that hunting animals and farming them for agriculture is immoral. He backs this argument by stating that all animals and people both have innate value and, therefore, should be treated equally. Personally, I agree with Regan; I do think that animals have certain rights and that using them for research and experimentation is somewhat immoral. However, one key aspect that Regan does not address in his argument is the fact that animals eat each other. If we all have the same innate value, then shouldn’t animals consuming each other also be immoral? Or, if Regan would claim that this is not immoral, then what exception applies to animal that does not apply to humans? This flaw in Regan’s argument seems to lend itself to one of two conclusions: either all animal consumption is immoral (regardless of who (human or animal) is consuming) or animal consumption is moral. To say that all animal consumption is immoral seems too far-reaching. Therefore, this seems to be a flaw in Regan’s argument. Although the methods in which some animals are farmed does seem immoral, animal consumption as a whole, in my opinion, cannot be called immoral.
You bring up a good point and a serious flaw in Regan’s argument. If it’s true that we all have the same innate value, why is it okay for animals to eat other animals and not humans to eat other animals? It seems like something that has been happening naturally since life on earth began cannot be morally wrong. The argument that humans can survive on earth not eating animals is irrelevant, because animals could do the same thing, they just don’t have the mental capacity to ever think that eating what they’ve always eaten is wrong.
When I first read Regan’s piece I had the same thought. I’ve had time to consider it now, and I think he wasn’t equating humans and animals, only saying we are born with the same innate value and rights. I think Regan still believes that humans have a far more developed moral compass, which is why it is our duty not to hurt these beings which do have the same innate value as us. This is the only way I can see Regan getting around the flaw you point out, and I’m still not sure if it works. I’m definitely still on the fence about the points he was making.
The point about animals eating each other/ the commonly phrased “circle of life” is one flaw in Regan’s argument. The other problem I have with Regan’s view is he doesn’t really offer a solution. He states, “animals are not our tasters”. Well if we stop testing on animals, what is the alternative? Test products on humans? Never create any new products? Perhaps this isn’t the point of Regan’s article but I feel that until I hear a valid alternative I can’t agree that the elimination of animals in the lab is better for the world, or at least for humanity.
Humans have bigger brains and more mental capacities than other animals. This being said, we have the ability of conscious thought, language, moral dilemmas, this is what makes being human special. However, to think that animals are here to serve us is not justified, nor eating them. Animals will consume each other in the wild because it is in their nature, and the fact that we are debating about eating animals shows us that eating animals is not necessary in human nature. Animals cannot morally ponder whether eating their prey is moral or not, they do not have the capacity while we do. Not saying that we are a better species, just developed more in different ways.
You claim humans are special because of our ability to have conscious thought, language and moral dilemmas. Well we have evidence of other species also having conscious thought and language, what they don’t seem to have are ‘moral dilemmas’. Animals have an innate sense of rightness of action.