Question

Regan thinks Singer’s utilitarian argument leaves a loophole. What is it and why does Regan think his own Kantian argument works better?  

Does Singer need marginal cases to make his argument? Explain why or why not.

Answer 1

Singer points out that since utilitarianism is restricted to humans it is internally incoherent having a loop as we cannot define nonhumans experiencing pleasure or pain. Regan thinks his own Kantian argument works better as he rejects utilitarianism as lacking a notion of intrinsic worth. Regan, therefore, calls for the total abolition of the use of animals in science, the dissolution of the commercial animal agriculture system, elimination of commercial and sports hunting and trapping. According to Regan, animals, and humans, all have equal intrinsic value on which their right to life and concern are based, thus his own Kantian argument of categorical imperatives works better. Singer needed marginal cases to make his argument as the argument from marginal cases claims that we can't both think that humans matter morally and that animals don't, because no reasonable set of criteria for moral worth cleanly separates all humans from all animals. Thus based on this argument only; he points out the loopholes of the utilitarian argument.