Introduction
In the article written by Tom Regan, "The Case for Animals Rights," he stresses more that the primary problem is the scheme which permits individuals to outlook animals as the capitals for human beings to be manipulated surgically, be eaten, to be used for the reasons of money and sports. As a lover of animals, I would never agree to hurt animals intentionally or take the life of an animal without any justifiable reason (Regan 610). However, with a purpose, animals are bound to be treated differently as the same as man. I trust that it is not good to eat creatures, manipulate them surgically, or use them for sport or money as far as it is within the ethological limits of human beings.
Tom shows that animals do not exist to be eaten by human beings. I do not support this argument of Regan, since, without animals, human beings may not have a source of food to eat form. A lot of food which human beings consume is regarded to be chicken, pork, fish, and beef as a source of proteins for the human body. The animals exist to be eaten by human beings. A lot of the philosophies have been pushed a lot due to this contribution. Animal rights have significantly been abandoned due to animal agriculture, which is all over the world.
Tom goes on to explain his view, which is against the cruelty kindness perspective. The illustration shows how a direct responsibility of being kind to the animals, and an immediate duty of not being cruel to them (Regan 612). Tom fails to believe that this brings a satisfactory result, since throughout an individual can be doing kind acts, but still they can be performing wickedly (Regan 612). Being against the cruelty and supporting kindness of animals do not spontaneously resolve the problem concerning the animals' moral treatment (612). Tom explains this through the following example, and if he happened to be a lavish chauvinistic, his actions could be genuine and real to his race. He could have a favor to his race considering other races, and although the involvement of kindness may be there, the actions will fail to be moral since they are based firmly in injustice (612).
Therefore, this theory does not confirm and fails since, although an individual action, maybe because of his kindness, it does not determine that their actions are right to be performed (612). Tom also makes the use of the theory of John Rawls of Contractarianism and expounds the reason why the theory fails to fit the provisions in the process of making an argument that animals are not entitled to any rights. Contractarianism is the perspective which states that the ones who comprehend, for example, young people, animals and humans who are mentally impaired, have a chance of being protected by the agreement circuitously, from the ones who value and cherish them. Therefore they are meant to receive similar privileges as they are stipulated down in the contract.
Conclusion
Every individual is entitled to choose on whatever to believe on, however, denying that the use of animals for money and sports, eating animals, hunting animals, or using them for entertainment is wrong in moral status. It is perceived to be wrong since the animals also have lives. The animals are also entitled to feelings just like humans, they experiencing birth, and nature their children just like humans, when pain is present they hurt, and they wounds just heal normally just like the ones for men when treated. Animals should seize to be used and treated like resources by human beings. Humans should stop to exploit them for food and surgical purposes or for money.
