Instant Access To 100,000+ Essays!

Tom Regan has carefully dealt with ethical dilemmas concerning the eating of meat. He concluded that eating meat is wrong because it denies life to animals in the absence of overriding moral action. Although there is a certain validity and soundness to his argument, it contains flaws that invite it to be contested. Regan’s fusing together of humans and animals has been previously questioned, and his counterarguments are imperfect, leaving room for his primary view to be attacked. Regan states that denying life to either humans or non-human animals is wrong in the absence of overriding moral consideration. Eating meat, logically, denies life to animals. Regan also states that there is no overriding moral consideration that justifies eating meat. Therefore, he claims that eating meat is wrong. In the argument, humans and all other animals are grouped together as one. Regan does this because he believes that there is no clear moral distinction between humans and other animals. There are many biological and characteristic distinctions that can be made between humans and other animals, such as the level of intelligence, but it would be difficult to decide where the line must be drawn between them. Certain animals, such a