The Case for Animal Rights

Regan brings up the idea of contractarianism and scenarios that related to it. In one
of the scenarios, Regan explained that because animals cannot understand a
contractors contract, they are not protected or given the same benefits to those
who can sign and understand the contract. Yet, if a human who is under the
contract has interest in an animal, like a cat, then that animal would be protected
by that human like how a child is protected by a parent who can sign and
understand said contract. On another point, Regan then explains that because
animals cant sign or understand the contract or if no human takes interest in that
animal, they dont have any rights.
Regarding the application contractarianism to animal rights, its most certain that
Regan disapproves this concept and I am in support of his belief. I dont agree with
the application of contractarianism to some extent because of the idea that you
have no rights or are treated differently if you cant sign and understand the
contract. Would a foreigner who is a permanent resident of the United States have
no rights just because I cant sign and understand contracts in English?
One thing that I will criticize the author for is how he focuses and explains the
opposing side rather than his own beliefs. As I read, Regan is continuously using
examples involving humans and the perspective of the opposing side. Since he
takes a while to explain and build up his conclusion that animals have rights and
that they have the same value as humans do, I often forget that I am reading about
animal rights. I feel as if I am reading on the principles of morality and how it is
applied to everyday life.
Ultimately, with the small number agreements and critiques, I am at a standstill on
whether to agree with Regan on his claims and points. There are questions that I
would want to ask him to move towards some conclusion. The types of questions
that I would like to ask Regan include knowing what he believes to be the right way
of treating animals. I am especially curious in his answer on how we should obtain
meat the right way if commercial farming is abolished.
How to Worry About Endangered Species
I agree with the policy recommended by the rights view where humans should just
let them (animals) be. I believe that humans dont owe animals any sort of duty
other than to respect their space and to leave them alone, unless human
intervention is needed in the cases of harmful human activities. This article was
straightforward although I was lost and confused at some parts.
Case
Question One has its pros and cons. The pros of this act offer fur-bearing mammals
to live at peace and how they naturally live in its habitat. I would believe that
animal rights activists and other similar individuals would love to see this sort of
result. The cons from this act is the poor management of these fur-bearing
mammals in which it also results in increased damage inflicted upon humans. I
believe that this act is just to some extent. I agree that traps the that inflicting
significant pain and cruelty to the fur-bearing mammals should be prohibited, but
that the board should have found other means to manage either directly or
indirectly with the harm inflicted by the growing populations of these fur-bearing
mammals. Overall, this act was poorly made, not thought out carefully, and didnt
take into consideration in some or most future potential problems.