Against Animal Right
The law recognises animals to have different rights including clean water, food and protected shelter. However, to have right, any being must have responsibilities over certain things including respecting and protecting the rights of other individuals and therefore the animals should not be recognised as having rights. This is because they are not held responsible for any occurrence. They do not have responsibilities. Regan and Tom (45) state that only the individuals that have souls should have rights. Animals do not have souls and therefore they are not supposed to have moral rights. Only beings that have souls should be have ethical consideration in the society. Animals are not moral and therefore should not have legal rights. Regan and Tom (47) postulates that right have meaning only on a moral community where individual are able to conduct their activities or tasks effectively. Animals do not live in a moral community and therefore should or do not have rights.
Regan and Tom (51) argue that rights is a unique concept among human and only applies to people. Animals therefore should not have rights because it would mean violation of the uniqueness of people. Having rights entails having moral judgement capacity. Animals do not have capacity relating to moral judgement therefore animals are not supposed to have rights. The sense that animals experience pain just like the human beings does not guarantee them to have rights. Regan and Tom (53) state that animals have the nervous system that make them to experience pain just like human beings and therefore does not mean that they have right. Animals lack most of the abilities recognized for any individual that should hold right. However, protection over animals and provision of various products including shelter and feed products.
Regan, Tom. The Case for Animal Rights. U of California P, 2004.