Web Results

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Regan

Using these materials, Regan argues that Principia's primary purpose was (as Moore wrote) to "humble the Science of Ethics" by exposing the "lies" told by " would-be scientific ethicists" ("Art, Morals, and Religion": May 5, 1901). In Moore's view, a truly scientific ethic is able to prove very little concerning values, rules, duty, ...

www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/regan03.htm

The fundamental wrong is the system that allows us to view animals as our resources, here for us — to be eaten, or surgically manipulated, or exploited for sport or money. Once we accept this view of animals - as our resources - the rest is as predictable as it is regrettable. Why worry about their loneliness, their pain, their ...

www.grin.com/en/e-book/322853/the-difference-in-tom-regan-s-and-peter-singer-s-positon-on-animal-rights

Tom Regan on the other hand adopts a deontological rights position which is the view that animals, like men are “ends in themselves” and therefore ought not to be exploited. Animals and humans have equal rights. In fact, to Regan, animals have similar essential properties like humans with regards to desires, memories,  ...

veganmuse.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/regan

Jan 15, 2008 ... Tom Regan is Professor of philosophy at North Carolina State University and a leading animal rights advocate. ... Many present day philosophers hold indirect duty views but have come to understand that they must avoid both the view that animals don't feel anything as well as the idea that only human pain ...

think-differently-about-sheep.com/Animal_Rights_A_History_Tom_Regan.htm

These compound what's wrong. Sometimes - often - they make it much, much worse. But they are not the fundamental wrong. The fundamental wrong is the system that allows us to view animals as our resources, here for us — to be eaten , or surgically manipulated, or exploited for sport or money. Tom Regan The case for ...

hettingern.people.cofc.edu/Environmental_Ethics/Regan_Case_For_Animal_Rights.htm

Tom Regan, Case for Animal Rights 2/10/05. Three views about our treatment of animals that Regan rejects: Indirect duty view (e.g., anthropocentrism): We have no direct duties to nonhumans, only duties to other humans regarding nonhumans. Regan thinks this is a highly implausible view: Torturing an animal is not wrong ...

www.animalethics.org.uk/i-ch6-10-regan-ryder-singer.html

Tom Regan Among Tom Regan's many books is The Case for Animal Rights ( 1983). Translated into several languages it made him a public name. Regan, an American ... In Singer's view, a sentient animal, a subject of a life, like a rat, has a higher priority to life as he has more to lose than a non-sentient being, like a worm.

patch.com/us/across-america/tom-regan-moral-philosopher-animal-rights-pioneer-dies-78

Feb 18, 2017 ... In writing a case for animal rights, Regan was not simply adopting the language of other moral and political movements: civil rights, human rights, women's rights. He was distinguishing his view from that of Singer and similar thinkers, known as utilitarians, who reject the notion of "rights" as a conceptual ...

rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil3140/Regan.pdf

TOM REGAN • The Case for Animal Rights 337. Regan defends the view that animals have rights based on their inherent value as expe riencing subjects of a life. He attacks other views, including indirect-duty views, the cruelty kindness view (as he calls itl, and even Singer's utilitarianism. Although he agrees with Singer.