Where do we Draw the Line?

Tom Regan claims that all mature mammals are sentient beings that are “subjects- of –a- life” meaning that they are not only living beings, but also have memories, emotions, and some degree of self-awareness. Their lives can be altered for better or worse and this entitles them to rights equal to a human’s. He argues that all subjects of life (i.e. humans and mammals) have an inherent value which obligates us to morally consider them. so. Mary Warren proposes a different form of animal rights and critiques Regan’s idea. She seems to take the greatest issue with his argument that animals deserve equal rights due to their inherent value. Regan gives a detailed description of what inherent value is not, but he never fully articulates what it is and where it comes from. I agree with Warren in that Regan does not adequately support this part of his argument, but my greatest issue with Regan is akin to Warren’s second criticism, which questions where we draw the line in determining what beings have moral status and which do not? Warren says that the reason that defining which animals fit into this category is such a problem is because there is no way to tell for sure which animals have the intellect necessary to fit the criteria. Regan suggests that it is all mammals, but Warren points out that “some birds appear to be just as mentally sophisticated as most mammals” (93). Yet under Regan’s idea of animal rights, these complex creatures are given no inherent value or moral status. I agree strongly that this is a fatal flaw in Regan’s proposal because it disregards some animals, which under his definition “subjects-of-life”, should be given rights. There is, however, another fundamental issue in regards to determining which animals should be given rights and that is who has the authority to make this decision? Do we rely on someone who is an expert in animal behavior and cognitive ability or do we rely on a philosopher who knows a great deal about the human condition but little about the animal one? Deciding what level of intelligence deems an animal worthy of moral status is extremely complicated and subjective. It is far better to assign some moral status to all living beings and then rank their moral status based on intelligence and likeness to humans in behavior and self-awareness. In this model, all living beings have some value, but some simply have more than others based on cognitive ability and relationship to humans. Value being given to all animals would ensure that they would no longer be regarded as things to which we may do as we please, but as living beings that deserve our careful consideration.