This needs to be revised by grammar - Essay Example

In his work “Animal Rights vs. Human Rights,” Edwin Locke declares that only creatures that possess the capability of thinking, reasoning and the capacity of making choices have rights. (1) He thus makes his stand very clear against the rights of animals. On the other hand, this viewpoint is strongly opposed by Tom Regan, who is a famous philosopher providing arguments for the provision of rights to the animals. In his work, “The Rights of Humans and Other Animals,” Tom Regan points out a few characteristics for having rights which mainly include rational autonomy and sentience. (17) However Regan gives up on rational autonomy shortly and opposes with Locke.

The other controversy that exists between Regan and Locke is the point that whether animals have a moral community like humans or they do not form. To search for a link between characteristics and rights can be classified as not being moral and neither is it a respectful behavior towards other beings. To start with, rational autonomy is the capability of thinking, reasoning and making choices. By rational autonomy creatures have the capacity to decide the consequences of their actions. Locke claims that animals do not need rights owing to the fact that they do not reason and nor do they take decisions which will have an effect on their lives.

Also, he argues that animals are instinctual and do not have the capacity of thinking as humans. Thus there is no strong justification according to Locke for the provision of rights to animals. On the other hand Regan argues that animals are not instinctual, they are living creatures and are capable of thinking just like humans. However, it is very clearly known that not all of the animals have rational autonomy and the same implies for humans as some of them also do not possess rational autonomy.

If only creatures that can think or reason and make choices have the rights (Locke 1) then too many people and animals will be excluded from this group. Thus rational autonomy cannot be a criterion of having rights. Regan analyzes this problem and hence disapproves with Locke’s point of view. Locke asserts that rights are vital for humans, because the rational autonomy of human beings is the key element to lead a better life. Human beings need to think and make choices for choosing a path to live their lives.

Locke claims that humans need rights for protecting their thoughts and themselves from other people. Thus he asserts that as long as animals are not rational they do not need rights for protecting themselves. In opposition to the justification of Locke, some animals which include dolphins, pigs are more intelligent than infants as well as mentally handicapped people. Regan argues that if rational autonomy is a criterion then these human beings would also be left out and they would also be excluded from the group of people who should be granted rights.

Regan then expresses that sentience is an important characteristic for having rights. Having sentience is ability to feel pain and pleasure. By the implication of sentience as a measure for the provision of rights, all human beings irrespective of their mental state would have the approval of being granted rights. At the same time, the quality of sentience would make animals and humans equal as both of them possess the capability of sensing pain or pleasure and hence they would both deserve rights in an equal manner.