In "The Radical Egalitarian Case for Animal Rights," Tom Regan argues that animals deserve moral consideration and respect, and that the ill treatment of animals for human purposes is morally wrong. Regan begins by stating that animals, like humans, are subjects-of-a-life and have inherent value. This means that they are beings who have their own experiences, projects, and plans, and that they have inherent value simply by virtue of being alive. Regan then goes on to argue that the exploitation and use of animals for human purposes, such as in agriculture, entertainment, and scientific research, is morally wrong and should be completely abolished. He asserts that it is wrong to treat animals as mere means to an end, just as it is wrong to treat humans in this way. …show more content…
This principle applies to all animals, not just those that are cognitively similar to humans. Regan believes that animals' interests should be taken into account in the same way as human interests, and that it is wrong to prioritize the interests of humans over those of animals. Regan also addresses the objection that animals do not have moral standing; they are not capable of fulfilling moral obligations nor engaging in moral actions compared to humans. He argues that this objection is based on a narrow and flawed understanding of moral standing, which sees it as dependent on cognitive abilities and actions. Regan affirms that moral standing should not be tied to cognitive abilities or actions, but understanding that moral standings is heavily influenced by inherent