Singer Vs Regan

Below is a short sample of the essay Singer Vs Regan. If you sign up you could be reading the rest of this essay in under two minutes. Registered users should login to view the essay.

Singer Vs Regan

Tom Rybak
Phil 340-01
2000-02-03
Singer vs. Regan
Despite their rather different philosophical foundations, both philosophers arrive at basically the same conclusions. Singer takes a utilitarian approach, while Regan takes a deontological rights and inherent value position. In the end they both take a position of vegetarianism and advocated banning animal experimentation and sport hunting. In an exchange of letters in the April 25, 1985 issue of The New York Review of Books, Regan writes: Singer and I have been independently applying and developing very different ethical theories to ... the treatment of non-human animals. He continues that it is difficult to exaggerate the radical moral difference between Singer's utilitarianism and the rights view. At the end of Singer's reply to Regan, Singer mentions: The practical value of Regan's book (All the dwell Therein) lies in its attack on our social practices of using animals as research tools and as mere lumps of palatable living flesh. On these practical issues Regan and I are in full agreement. Viewed from the perspective of a society which continues to accept these practices, the philosophical differences between us hardly matter.
In 1975, Australian philosopher Peter Singer wrote a book called Animal Liberation. In this book Singer argued that humans should not use animals, all based on utilitarianism. Utilitarians say actions should be judged strictly by their consequences. An action is good if it will provide the greatest benefit to the largest number of individuals. Singer did not stop there, and said that when we calculate consequences, we must take into account the interests not only of human beings but also of animals. If we fail to consider these animals' interests, or if we give human beings special consideration, we are guilty of speciesism. To Singer, animal research is morally acceptable if the benefits to humans or animals used clearly outweigh the harm to the animals used in the research. He usually concludes that the cost to the animals outweighs the benefit to others.
Singer's contender, Tom Regan set forth another animal rights view in a 1983 book, The Case for Animal Rights. Regan emphasizes that not only people, but also many animals are entitled to certain rights. He bases his reasoning on the idea that both humans and animals have an elementary understanding of the world and know generally what they desire from life. Regan's rights-based philosophy says that most mamma...

The complete article is about 1017 words and 4.07 pages long.

To continue reading the complete article, subscribe below and get free instant unlimited access.

Once you have registered for an Account, No refunds can be issued.
Please make sure you look over the site before you purchase an account!!!