Because human experiences are contextual, they come out of an ongoing life, and effect the future of that life. It has been noted that many animals exhibit these features and therefore have inherent worth. And yet, the basic strategy of such "animal rights" philosophers as Tom Regan and Peter Singer, is to stress the similarity between humans and non-human animals while, at the same time, de-emphasizing and perhaps devaluing that which sets humans apart from the animals; namely, the moral significance and dignity of personhood.
Ryder denounces utilitarianism because it justifies the exploitation of some animals if there is a net gain in happiness for the majority of other animals that is humans in practice. Peter Singer b "All animals are somebody - someone with a life of their own.
With language and personhood, life-quality is transformed. Thus the quality of a pleasure or pain can not be assessed apart from the quality of the life it happens "in" or "to" -- apart from the matrix of attitudes, expectations and evaluations that make up that life.
In the end both, Regan and Singer wind up getting a similar message across. Singer notes if a being can suffer then it has interests. The limitation thereof is based upon empirical fact and circumstance. Now if, as Regan and Singer contend, the differences between human and animal lives are simply matters of degree not kind, cf.
The protest was held in the street against factory farming and featured caged paper-mache hens and a stuffed calf in an imitation stall. An action is good if it will provide the greatest benefit to the largest number of individuals. But surely, this is not how it is.
He usually concludes that the cost to the animals outweighs the benefit to others. You have a generous quality to your nature, but you must guard carefully against giving more than you receive or you will find yourself doing without because you have helped someone else.
Of course, animals and language-deprived humans can suffer pain, and may therefore be said to have a right not to endure gratuitous pain. However, on the other side within earshot is "Rover.
Indeed, if recent experiments with "ape language" are as significant as some claim then a reassessment of our moral stance toward these cousins is overdue.Regan v Singer: Animal Rights Regan's most recurrent strategy for validating animal rights is to demonstrate that if human beings can be said to have rights, some animals can likewise be said to have rights.
An Analysis of Employee Rights vs. Employer Rights BSAD – Professional Ethics 4/29/ When comparing the granted rights of employees versus employers, it does not truly seem that either party has the advantage. Tom Regan (b ) Richard Ryder (b ) Peter Singer (b ) "All animals are somebody - someone with a life of their own." Tom Regan Among Tom Regan's many books is The Case for Animal Rights ().
Translated into several languages it made him a public name. singer versus regan Essay Examples. A Summary and Analysis of the Articles, Singer Solution to World Poverty by Peter Singer and Feeding the Hungry by Jan Narveson ( words, 4 pages) This paper summarizes and critiques two articles on the debate on feeding the hungry.
The two articles summarized and critiqued are Peter Singers article. Regan Sprenkle (aka: regan) has had a life-long career as a vocalist, composer, arranger, recording artist, voice-over artist, producer, engineer, studio musician. Free essays & term papers - Singer vs Regan, Philosophy.Download