Food Ethics: A Critical Evaluation of Tom Regan's Animal Rights Case

This essay provides a critical evaluation of Tom Regan's argument in "The Radical Egalitarian Case for Animal Rights," where he advocates for the complete dissolution of commercial farming due to its violation of animal rights. The author examines Regan's Kantian stance that all subjects of a life possess inherent value and should not be treated merely as means to an end. While acknowledging the environmental and ethical concerns surrounding animal agriculture, the essay also considers counterarguments, such as the traditional philosophical view that animals lack the rationality necessary to possess rights. The analysis explores the impacts of industrialized animal farming, including animal exploitation, environmental pollution, and potential health risks to humans due to antibiotic overuse. Ultimately, the essay presents a nuanced perspective, questioning whether commercial farming necessarily violates animal rights, while recognizing the importance of addressing the ethical and environmental issues associated with it. Desklib offers a platform to explore this essay and other academic resources.

RUNNING HEAD: READING JOURNAL
Title: Reading Article
Name of Student:
Name of University:
Author Note:

1READING JOURNAL
In his seminal text the Radical Egalitarian case for animal, the American Philosopher Tom
Regan argues that the commercial animal farming is a wrong practice since it evidently violates
the natural rights of animals and human being the superior animals are able to carry out the
illegal practice since they have the authorities. Though the argument has been criticised as well
as acclaimed widely, however, the question of the legality of the animal farming still are raised
based on other socio economic and environmental factors, even if the factor of animal rights are
not taken into consideration. Animal agriculture as a vast process requires a great amount of
food, energy, land and water and has been emerged as one of the most “significant contributors
to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global.”( Rorty, 1999)
It has been shown that the exploitation of animals in these plants are immense and
moreover, there are no proper sewage plants and the waste products are mostly left in the fields
that pollutes the area , land and water to a large extent (Fiester, 2015). Animal farming now a
days are primarily dominated by industrialised factories and the exploitation of animals had been
immense. It has been revealed that in the farms four or sometimes even more hens are packed
together in a battery cage where they cannot even spread their wings. Growing pigs in some of
the farms are confined to bare concrete floors with chains.
Concerns have also been raised about the impacts that human as well has to face because
of such unhealthy practices of animal farming. The overuse of antibiotics and drugs on the
animals not only affects the animals, but the consumption of these animals affects human as
well. The practice has allegedly raised the antibiotic resistance within human body.
In the argument, Regan in the support of his views have taken a Kantian stance where he
argues that “all subjects of a life posses inherent values and must be treated as ends-in-

2READING JOURNAL
themselves and not as a means to an end.” By this, Regan opposes the fact that only rational
beings will have the rights for judgement. The animal theory critics are of the opinion that
animals should not be given the right for judgement since they are not the rational entity and thus
will not be able to exercise these rights. However, Regan is of the view that the act of offering
judgemental superiority only to the rational is basically an irrational approach (Luke, 1992),.
However, one cannot solely agree of Regan in this view. The early philosophers were essentially
correct in stating that the animals do not have the thinking ability and have no consciousness of
acting morally, giving rights to them will not serve any means. According to Rene Decartes
animals do not essentially posses the morality as such and hence they cannot be considered for
giving rights. Though killing any creature by inflicting pain and torture is a cruel act, the
commercial farming does not necessarily violates animal rights.

3READING JOURNAL
Reference List:
Fiester, A. (2015). Ethical issues in animal cloning. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 48(3),
328-343.
Luke, B. (1992). Justice, caring, and animal liberation. Between the Species, 8(2), 13
Regan, T. (2011). The radical egalitarian case for animal rights. Food Ethics, 31.
Rorty, R. (1999). Human rights, rationality and sentimentality. The Politics of Human Rights, 67.