“The Case For Animal Rights” written by Tom Regan, promotes equal treatment of humans and non-humans. I agree with Regan's view because it suggests that humans and animals share the experience of life and therefore share equal inherent value. To begin with, Regan argues that people tend to believe that animals "ignore" pain, and because humans are capable of announcing when they are in pain, it is therefore considered morally wrong to harm a human being rather than an animal. This type of thinking falls under conceptions of vicarious duty, which suggest that animals have no direct connection or bond with humans, unlike humans with their own species. Regan explains that discounting animals as capable of experiencing pain is morally wrong in itself, as is the vicarious duty view (1989). Second, Regan introduces a second view, known as contractarianism. Although he suggests many flaws in this view, he also agrees that it supports his view of inherent value to some extent. This particular view identifies that since humans have the ability to understand rules, they are able to accept and practice moral acts and avoid immoral acts. So, human beings have every right to be treated with respect. Regan explains that this is problematic because children are not necessarily capable of the same level of thinking as adults, meaning that the view mentioned above cannot be applied. Despite this, children have every right to protection, simply because they have parents or guardians who assume this so-called “contract”. Regan argues that if this is the case for children, why can't animals also have a contract?, because they do not have the same level of thinking as an average adult. Nonetheless...... middle of paper ...... if you are unlikely to treat a human being in a disrespectful and hurtful manner, then why would you do the same to another breathing being, regardless or the type species in question. est.In conclusion, I agree with Tom Regan's view on the rights view, as it explores the concept of equality and the concept of rightful treatment of animals and humans. If a being is capable of living and experiencing life, then they are more than likely capable of feeling pleasure and pain, except in a few cases. If humans are still treated respectably and fairly even if some cannot vote or think for themselves, then it is only fair that animals who also lack some of these abilities are treated equally. equality. As Regan says, “pain is pain, wherever it occurs” (1989). Works Cited Regan, Tom. “The Case for Animal Rights” University of California Press 2004