Inherent value?

Regan claims that both humans and animals are “subjects of a life with inherent value.” To refute the claim that animals do not have as much value as humans because they lack reason and intellect, he states that because we do not view a retarded child or mentally deranged individual as having less inherent value than the rest of humanity we cannot say that animals have less value. This is not a very convincing argument. I don’t see how it follows that because we view the mentally handicapped as having inherent value, animals must have inherent value. Regardless, to refute his point, both a retarded child and a mentally deranged person are capable of language and learning. They may not be able to work out complex intellectual problems but they can understand basic issues of right and wrong and can probably follow basic logic. This is not something that animals are capable of. They cannot make even a basic moral choice.

Regan may refute the above argument by asking about those who are brain dead or severely mentally retarded. These individuals cannot reason and often struggle to communicate, yet we generally view them as having inherent value. It is true that these individuals are not deemed useless or treated cruelly despite the fact that they cannot contribute anything to the world or fend for themselves. However, most of their value as beings comes from those who care about them (i.e. parents, siblings, etc). Without the familial connection to moral, reasonable, intellectual beings these severely impaired individuals would not survive. Animals in the wild would not provide the same support for their fellow animals that have defects or handicaps. These animals are left to fend for themselves. Overall, many mentally disabled individuals maintain the capacity to reason and those who do not generally have less inherent value than other humans and are not good benchmarks by which to assess animals’ inherent value.