Tom Regan's Animal Rights vs. Christian Ethics Compared
This reflection paper examines the concept of being an "experiencing subject of a life" as articulated by philosopher Tom Regan and evaluates it against a Christian ethical framework. The paper argues that while all living things possess inherent worth deserving of respect, human beings hold a special dignity by virtue of being created in the image and likeness of God. Drawing on Christian stewardship theology and the example of St. Francis of Assisi, the author contends that respectful treatment of creation is morally obligatory, yet this does not require granting animals equal rights to humans. Regan's egalitarian premise is acknowledged as logically consistent but ultimately rejected as incompatible with a theistic understanding of creation.
- Experiencing Subjects of a Life: Defines what it means to be a living subject
- Human Dignity and Christian Teaching: Human value rooted in image of God
- Stewardship, Respect, and Creation: Respect for creation as belonging to God
- St. Francis and the Love of Creation: Love of God motivates care for animals
- Tom Regan's Animal Rights Framework: Regan argues animals deserve equal rights
- Conclusion: Reconciling Ethics and Belief: Regan's premise rejected on theological grounds
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper uses a concrete, relatable analogy — disrupting a friend's home — to illustrate the moral obligation to respect creation, making an abstract theological claim immediately accessible.
- It fairly presents Regan's argument on its own terms, acknowledging its internal logical consistency before explaining why the author cannot accept its foundational premise.
- The integration of a specific religious exemplar (St. Francis of Assisi) grounds the theological argument in a recognized historical figure, adding credibility and narrative texture.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates the technique of premise-level disagreement: rather than attacking the logical structure of Regan's conclusion, the author identifies and challenges the foundational premise — that humans and animals share equal inherent value — and explains why a competing worldview (Christian theology) leads to a different but coherent ethical position. This is a sophisticated way to engage opposing philosophical arguments in a reflection paper.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by engaging Regan's concept of "experiencing subject of a life," then builds a counter-framework rooted in Christian theology, supported by the analogy of a friend's home and the example of St. Francis. It closes by fairly summarizing Regan's position before clearly explaining the basis of disagreement. This structure — engage, reframe, compare, conclude — is well suited to a short philosophical reflection.
Experiencing Subjects of a Life
To be an experiencing subject of a life means to be something that is here, now, alive, in this world — part of the grand mystery that is life. In this sense, anything that exists has life: from people to birds to trees to grass to even water and rocks. There is a grace, a power, a beauty, and a soul woven through all of it. To disregard something as unworthy of concern, or to treat it as something that can simply be annihilated or abused, is to be disconnected from this grand harmony.
Human Dignity and Christian Teaching
However, I do not think that being the subject of a life means that one has equal inherent value. As a human being, I feel that we can derive a sense of our value from religious teachings — particularly the traditional Christian teaching that holds we are created in the image and likeness of God. This teaching points to a special relationship that human beings have with the Creator and signifies that our value is inherently greater than the rest of creation.
References
Feister, J. (2017). Saint Francis of Assisi and the animals. Retrieved from http://blog.franciscanmedia.org/saint-francis-of-assisi-and-the-animals
Regan, T. (1985). Case for animal rights. In Peter Singer (Ed.), In Defense of Animals (pp. 13–26). New York: Basil Blackwell.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.