Animal rights activist and Professor Tom Regan holds the position that it is justifiable to completely abolish the use of animals in science, agriculture, hunting and so on. He justifies this position on the theory of inherent value which he defines as the state in which every being is more than a mere receptable, and he concludes that all who have inherent value are to have it equally. Therefore, if a thing has inherent value it is wrong not to show respect for its value, i.e. To treat it as a mere resource for the use of others, as a means to an end. Because animals are included among things with inherent value Regan argues that to use them as a means to an end is morally wrong.
The argument against Regan's view is not that non-humans do not have rights. Non-humans, that is, animals have a right to humane treatment but that animals do not have "person-rights" such as freedom of worship or the right to an education. Not because human beings are remiss to grant animals these rights but because animals lack the capacity to exercise such rights. Regan would argue that there are classes of human beings that also lack the capacity to exercise these rights such as children or the mentally handicapped but these type are accorded these rights in anticipation of their being exercised at some point in the future. Animals, on the other hand, will never be in a position to be accorded these rights in anticipation.
The other quality or ability that Regan fails to consider is the aspect of language. Language affords humans with the ability to respond. Respond to not only images but also abstractions, propositions, hypotheses and moral principles. This ability distinguishes humans from non-humans in that through this capacity humans are able to develop a self-concept distinguishable from all other humans. Non-humans totally lack this ability.
The fact that humans are interactive allows them to effect the quality of their lives. Humans enjoy mental and emotional pain; they possess self-respect, intellectual and creative capacity and, thus, deserve a moral consideration beyond that of animals.
