Regan’s Philosophy is Beneficial to the Developed World

I sympathize with Regan’s desire to eliminate all society-condoned animal-exploitation because I agree with his algebraic take on the equality between animals and humans, and its utility to our country’s environment.

In opposition to Warren’s criticism of Regan’s notion of inherent value, I am in support of his concept. I consider it a variable representing the base similarity between animals and humans that allow them to be equal. Whether or not there is a scientific, spiritual, or religious view to confirm or deny the idea, it is still there, and can be utilized to construct system of human-animal equality.

A grey area of Regan’s argument are the benefits to our country’s environment from the banning of factory farms, specifically the reduction of resources used to feed the animals, and the waste and pollution caused by the factory farms. But, since all animal-exploitation is banned, there are no kitschy “family farms”, where the idea goes that animals are necessary for a farm environment to prosper. Where does Regan draw the line on how humans interact with animals? If a chicken dies on a farm, can a human eat it?

I wonder how people who really like meat would feel about a law that would completely take away their freedom to eat it. Meat eating is so integral to American culture, that the idea of it being banned much like racism, is extremely radical. Regan implies that such change would be spun from a nation-wide belief change that animals shouldn’t suffer. It seems readily apparent that unless such a giant wave of changed perception were to occur, the opposition from our habits, and our country’s corporation would squash any small uprising in terms of animal rights.