Upon reading the article on animal rights by Tom Regan I found that although his intentions are well aimed, his argument is fundamentally flawed as well as practically irrational. His argument for an equal level of instrinsic value between humans and non human animals rests on what I believe to be a faulty premise. He says that everyone has equal intrinsic value for being a sentient being. He goes on further to rightfully say that animals are sentient beings as well. While it is easy to concede that fact, what is more difficult and largely unexplored by Regan is the value we place of a volitional consciousness. In my view, what gives the human species a morally superior position to non human animals is their ability to reason. Since we are able to think on a higher philosophic level and contemplate our decisions and their ethical repercussions, we possess a distinguishing characteristic. Regan himself raises the question but in his attempts to extinguish its validity he gives a terribly irrational association. He attempts to make his point by noting the rationality we apply in taking care of an infant or a mentally challenged person. Although they are humans, in their state they do not have the ability to reason and use their mental faculties like the rest of the species. What is troubling to me is that he cites infants. Although in their infantile state they are unable to reason on a naturally superior level than that of other non human animals, they more often than not possess the ability to one day acquire that ability. Although his arugment is based on a negative philosophic argument, he is also unable to address the many problems his dream world would possess.
If commercial fishing and other food producers were unable to do what they do to the extent that they do it than the fall out would be catastrophic. Yes the commercial fishing and cattle raising practices pose a threat to local and even the global environment, but what were to happen if they were altogether stopped. Aside from some very angry Texans and new Englanders we would see price of food skyrocket with a shortage in supply and an increasing demand for a global population heading through the roof. Getting rid of the system would create a situation that would pose immediate threats to the nourishment of people all over the world. I think that the approach of Warren is more feasible and serves to promote a similar aim of Regan. We see the application of such environmentally friendly commercial fishing boats that have welcomed scientists on board to help reduce the amount of undesirable fish ending up in their nets. By studying the fish and their reactions to the looming mouth of a predator (the net), they noticed that by placing a black funnel around the head of the nets catch it caused the undesirable fish to swim at a higher depth and therefore out of the nets catch. Such examples like this can help to serve the fish populations but more broadly this represents what continuing to fish on a larger scale can help maintain price as well as help understand and improve the conditions of a previously unaltered system. We value the animal for what they provide us and in doing so we can slowly come closer to a more perfect existence between all other animals.