Question

SUMMARIZE:Mary Anne Warren, “Difficulties with the Strong Animal Rights Position”

Answer 1

In the Mary Anne Warren article “Difficulties with the Strong Animal Rights Position,” she elaborated her analysis and strongly criticism the work “The Case for Animal Rights” by Tom Regan. In her article she states that animals have the same basic moral rights are human and they are not to be harmed or killed without reasons. According to the Regan’s case three stages are present, As Warren states, the first stage states that normal, mature mammals are not only existed biologically but also psychologically. They are called subjects-of-a-life, and they have inherent values. The second stage says that their value is independent of both the value they may place upon their lives or experiences and the value others may place upon them. The third stage mentions that all subjects-of-a-life has equal inherent values. For example, we are supposed to treat other sentient beings as our equal.

            Next, Warren shows the problems of Regan’s theory. She thinks that the strong animal right position creates the same amount of problems as it solves. In addition, Regan’s theory does not explain what “inherent value” is. It demonstrates what the “inherent value” is not. According to Warren, there are not sharp lines between rational beings with inherent value and the ones without. Warren then explains why animal rights are weaker than human rights. She claims that human can change their actions or thoughts with words. We can listen to arguments and cooperate with each other to solve a problem. On the other hand, we cannot do the same to animals because they don’t speak human languages. She also mentions that, as human, we protect infants and people with mental disabilities although they are not normal rational beings. However, we don’t do the same for animals except for beloved pets. Nevertheless, Warren says that we are obliged not to harm animals even though they do not have rights.

            The outline of the weak animal rights position, according to Warren, states that: first,any creature whose are capable of feeling pain or frustration has the right to live without any suffering inflicted on them by others. Secondly, the creature whose exist to pursuit certain satisfaction has the right not to be forced to exist without the opportunity to pursue that satisfaction. And finally, no sentient beings should be killed without good reasons.

            In conclusion, Warren argues that Regan’s claim about strong animal rights is unpersuasive. Because Regan’s key concept is the inherent value of sentient being which, according to Warren, is defined only in the negative term. However, Warren mentions that moral rights are not an all-or-nothing affair. It has to do with the degree of mental sophistication and sentience.