Animal rights have been a heated issue for decades, argued by such philosophers as Tom Regan. Regan believes that any practice in which an "experiencing subject of a life" is used as a resource is unethical, not because of emotion, but because of reason. In this paper, I will provide a short reconstruction and evaluation of Regan's argument for animal rights. Tom Regan is a firm believer and strong supporter of animal rights. This includes …showed first 75 words of 770 total…

…showed last 75 words of 770 total…to point out cases where the line between right and wrong is slightly blurred. For example, in the case of sometimes fatal scientific research experiments, is it morally permissible to kill an animal to benefit society? You must ask yourself, is it morally permissible to kill a human being to benefit society? I think not. This is where Regan's argument succeeds once again. "A good end does not justify an evil means (404)," and I agree.