Tom Regan, A Case for Animal Rights

American Philosopher Dr. Tom Regan speaks about the need for ethical treatment of Animals. Royal Institute of Great Britain, 1989

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• Tom
• Regan
• Animal
• Rights
• Philosophy
• Peace
• Justice

[yadeyrinii]

Thanks for posting this. This is really great commentary. I wish everyone could watch this. Probably the most worthwhile youtube video I have ever seen.

[palovalenti]

*TRUTH*

[AesirSpell]

@ZoldierrZzz Killing is the only way to survive in this plane of existence. We borrow energy from living entities so that we may live. Every living organism does this, or lives off of a life byproduct. It is natural, and your "just words argument also apply to the words right and wrong. Lol

[ZoldierrZzz]

@AesirSpell

Killing them quick doesn't justify the killing. You've violated the animals right to live their lives peaceful to fullest by ending them for your own personal gain. It is not necessary to kill animals in order to survive, we can live healthy on a vegan diet. And about your "natural act" argument. Sure it's natural, it's also natural to not eat animals. Natural or unnatural are just words, what we should look at is what is wrong and what is right, and make what is right "natural".

[TheLobstar666]

@AesirSpell you bring up a good point; if there is a quick humane kill, can it be considered morally reprehensible? with philosophers like Regan and Singer, although they do appeal to the atrocities against nonhuman animals, that is not the primary focus. what is, i think, is something like Kant's non utilitarian ethics that say to treat individuals as ENDS rather than MEANS to an end. we must at least respect the most basic interest of the living, to live. "Natural" no bearing on what SHOULD be

[AesirSpell]

I hunt all year round. I feed my family with quick humane kills. More humane than primitive methods. It is a natural act. Is this wrong?

[angrydead]

@andres98789 That's still a dubious stance since it holds an Human to higher moral stances than an animal whilst at the same time asking that said animal#s behavoir and attitudes be ignored, it smacks of special pleading.

[andres98789]

@GabrielEspinosa7 reply to part six: again, the people he was addressing should have been familiar with his various books, where he goes into details about all the points you think he missed in this short 10 min clip. I thoroughly recommend his book ''the case for animal rights'' if you haven't read it yet, it's not an easy read, but you will find a very valid logic argument from him there.

[andres98789]

@GabrielEspinosa7 The problem with him focusing on the higher intelligence side of the argument in this clip, is that the other philosophers would have found it not valid from as you may have seen in one of the other clips where they make the most outrageous illogical arguments against animal rights.

[andres98789]

@GabrielEspinosa7 Reply to part four continuation: But just because human babies, mentally disable people or orcas haven't got the capacity to act in an ethical manner and are not considered moral agents, doesn't mean that we should take away their basic rights (to live and to be treated with respect) We shouldn't give them rights to vote or to do other things that they're not capable of, but certainly give them the basic rights that all living creatures deserve.

[andres98789]

@GabrielEspinosa7 Reply to part four: He addresses this in his various books. Orcas are not moral agents (they're not aware what morals are) therefore you cannot expect them to act in a moral manner to do what we would consider ok, the same way you cannot expect a human baby or a mentally disable person to know what morals are. All these fore mentioned are not moral agents and therefore incapable of acting in an ethical manner.

[andres98789]

@GabrielEspinosa7 reply to part three: again please check his books where you will find all this prove that you think he doesn't have, bare in mind that this 10 min speech wasn't aimed at you, but at the various philosophers in the conference that are already familiar with his work. The book is aimed at the public and that's why you will find all the logical prove and explanation you seek within it.