The Case for Animal Rights
Tom Regan's 1983 argument that animals have moral rights as subjects-of-a-life.
At a glance
Key ideas
Subject-of-a-life criterion, Who qualifies, Against contract theory …
See all 4Reception
A benchmark, Robert Nozick, Mary Midgley
See all 3Connections
Tom Regan and Animal Liberation
See all 2
Also on this page: Key facts · Links · Sources · Related pages
- Regan argues that at least some animals have moral rights because they are "subjects-of-a-life": beings with beliefs, desires, memory, a sense of the future and a welfare of their own.
- Such beings have inherent value and may not be treated merely as means.
- The argument is deontological, not utilitarian, and he criticises Peter Singer's hedonic utilitarianism.
- He concludes that animal agriculture, most animal testing and commercial hunting should be abolished.
Why it matters
- It is a key text of animal rights theory and the main rights-based alternative to Singer's utilitarian case.
Key facts
- Author
- Tom Regan1
- Published
- 1983, University of California Press2
- Later edition
- 2004, with a new preface1
Key ideas
-
Subject-of-a-life criterion1
More than being alive or conscious: having beliefs, desires, perception, memory and a welfare of one's own.
-
Who qualifies1
Normal mammals over a year old, several bird species and possibly fish.
-
Against contract theory1
Young children cannot sign contracts but still have rights.
-
Abolition1
Exploitation for food, testing and hunting is not justified.
Reception
Connections
Links
Sources
Last checked against its sources today
Is something on this page wrong or out of date? Tell us
The line under a date fills as time passes: empty when new, then one equal share each for a day, a week, a month and a year. For episodes and other items it is full at 2 years; for "last checked", at a year. A striped line means the date is known only to the month or year.