The Rights of Humans and Other Animals by Tom Regan

Regan begins by trying to lay the foundation. He gives a brief definition of what he thinks moral judgments are before talking about rights. This way, there is no confusion. And when he does finally begin talking about rights, he begins with human rights. He points out that several other philosophers share similar opinions on the subject matter and several others don't, one of them being Frey, whom he brings up throughout the paper. Regan believes that human rights are simply limits on what humans can do to one another. He explains that regardless of who else benefits, one cannot do something to another human if it goes against their own will. This is when he introduces his opinion on animal model research. Because, essentially, that is what humans are doing to animals: using them for the benefit of human medicine. He then contrasts his opinions with those of Frey's. He explains that Frey is very much a utilitarian in that he believes that morality completely depends on the results. Thus, making it okay to utilize others for the benefit of the community. Regan uses several different scenarios where this would fail to make these situations even remotely close to being moral. It isn't until the last few pages that he really hammers down his opinions on animal rights. He begins by creating a separation between animal welfare and animal rights. Animal welfare is focused more on the proper treatment of animals. However, it still allows for animals to be used in a laboratory setting, which, as Regan points out, can share several of the same views as those of utilitarianism. Those that are more concerned with animal rights cannot see any possible way that animals could be kept in laboratories without utilizing them for the benefit of others. He then goes on to bring up a question that also causes a lot of controversy. What is the criteria one must have to qualify for having rights? He brings up two possible answers but neither of which could possibly encompass all and only human beings. And this is why it is very ignorant for anyone to think that non-human animals have no rights. We are all animals and because of that, we share many characteristics that cannot be limited to only humans. Morality truly is the trump card here. If everyone could agree that it is not moral to use others (human or non-human) to benefit the rest then there is no possible way to explain how the use of animals in laboratories is acceptable. Being science majors, Jose and I both struggle to imagine what today's medicine would look like had it not been for the animals being experimented on. However, we can both agree that animals should have rights. And if that means completely abolishing animals from research facilities, then so be it.

Susana Muniz
Jose Cadenas