Animals Right Theory (Essay Sample)

Animals Right Theory
Student Name
University
Course
Professor Name
Date
Animals Right Theory
Mary Anne Warren criticized Tom Regan's claim that non-human species have no fundamental moral entitlements subordinate to ours. Warren then argues that Regan's second phase of his theory is against utilitarianism as he adds, "Individuals are like receptacles, since damage to a person may be justified via higher direct gain to other people" (Warren 164). He goes on to explain that animals are life-themselves and that all life-themselves have intrinsic value. The fundamental worth of all substances is equivalent, and no inherent party is higher than the other. This leads pilots to the concept of respect, which prevents us from seeing creatures with inherent value as passive receptacles. Humans, therefore, cannot ought not to exploit morally any kind of intrinsic worth so that everything that has value to another person can not be ethically exploited, and that is why even mountains have rights. However, the intrinsic value is outlined loosely. Due to this, it is impossible to distinguish which entities have and lack inherent value. "The bridge between the reasonable argument that everything is normal, adult mammals, humans and that else they claim to have the fundamental moral rights of equal strength." (Palatinate 165) The grey area hypothesis suggests that a distinction can be formed between intrinsic worth and what lacks inherent worth. Still, it is challenging to locate a suitable spot where this boundary can be placed because of the ambiguity in defining an inherent value.
Warren contends that the promine