Animal Rights Human Wrongs By Tom Regan

Words: 1779
Pages: 8

Imagine a world of almost millions of people own a pet or have a professional career taking care of animals. Even though we hunt animals for certain resources, we can still need them for proper goods. People might debate between the two authors about their reasoning. Two of the prominent authors were Tom Regan and Stephan Rose. In both of the article “Animal rights, Human wrongs” by Tom Regan and “Proud to be specialist” by Stephen Rose, two divergent aspects are expressed towards animal rights and medical specimen. In the articles, the author’s shows their consciousness of the problem of animal harm. Rose and Regan propose different types of reasoning why animal should have their rights or used for human survival. Tom Reagan essay, Focus more …show more content…
Stephan Rose confront his audience in his essay and truthfully say, “ I research on animals” which gives him a reason why he justify himself as medical researcher and fights back for other scientists who’s been carried out of their research lab for using animals as specimen (Rose 342). He shows enough evidence that he value his time with coming up with new medicine for people in general besides taking pleasure of harming animals. He also mentions “ takes a term near the heart of many animals rights” which makes a claim he’s “using it make his own case for using animals in research” as evidence he claim that using animals will solve certain issues happening to children without looking for a cure since one is already found. On the other hand, although Regan make a valid argument about animal rights, he still chooses mention this in his essay that’s related to ethos. “Animal Rights, Human wrongs”, Reagan shows he concern about the animals that being harmed that can’t defend themselves and the irreplaceable species that’s being killed for human goods and resources. He states “Why is this to the last remaining members of an irreplaceable species, certainly until recently, possibly at this very moment, by supposedly civilized men? For Candle wax, for soap and oil. For pet food, margarine, fertilizer” (337). He makes a claim that Rose will use animals for unnecessary …show more content…
He wants the industries to stop harming animal and start relating practices to be a halt, knowing that animal’s rights can be justified. As a reader, Regan agrees that animal abuse can be stop and be more concerned than more things. However, Rose’s reasoning is not about animal rights, but how people think. “All the facts shows that most animal righters are really arguing that the closer human beings get to animals, the more attached they will defend their rights and the more rights they should have” (343-344). He makes it clear “that it is we, as humans, who are conferring rights on animals-not the animals themselves” (344). He makes a very good point about animals making rights for themselves, which is really illogical coming from a philosopher who should make more valid reason behind