Tom Regan Vs Singer

Regan v Singer
The forever convoluting argument of animal moralism has reached the field of animal research. Tom Regan, who is an advocate for animal rights, finds it preposterous that animals are used as resources for experimentation, regardless of the hopes of improving our knowledge and skills in the medical field. He starts his argument by claiming that it is fundamentally wrong for us to view animals as our resources (1). The process of using animals for experimentation, rather than taking them by our side as companions, is part of a huge system that convinces us that it’s okay to use animals for our own particular interests. Taking animals into the laboratory leaves the interests of the animals completely disregarded.
The concept of

The only argument I have to make to support Regan’s claim is to ask you to take into consideration the life that is experienced by humans and nonhuman animals alike. A living being is born, and introduced to the world. The living being then starts to grow, and makes sacrifices for what is necessary to survive, such as finding food or shelter. The living being then produces offspring, which it then raises to have the similar life experience. The very experience of a live is valuable, and animals are without doubt experiencers of a life. There is no better argument than this to prove Regan’s claim that everyone has inherent value, and has it equally (7). Regan then adds that inherent value coincides with an equal right to be treated with respect. Using animals in a laboratory, or in other words reducing their value only to what is useful for us, is no different than treating them with a lack of respect. Regan uses this string of knowledge to conclude that using animals for testing is a violation of their rights

He argues that without animal testing, the medical presence would be nowhere near as strong as it is today. Every advance in medical history -- disease elimination, vaccine development, surgical procedures, etc -- was started with animal research. (98) In other words, such processes wouldn’t have come to be without the successes and failures in the animal laboratory. To this, Regan might argue once again that the use of animals for research is morally wrong. Cohen would respond to this with the statement that the incredible variety of the advancements achieved through medical research is responsible for the improvement the quality of lives of humans and animals alike. Lives have been saved due to the discoveries found by animal testing. Refraining from using animals for biomedical research would put a halt on these discoveries, and would therefore be morally wrong.