The maximisation of utilitarianism and satisfaction of the dominant species as an immoral act, must surely only be recognized by those who have an opposing view to the dominant species. The dominant species do not think that their use of animals to their best satisfaction is immoral at all. The lines of morality grounds must surely be least effective in the arguments to establish rights for other species, as in this case, animals.
The moral right of the animals cannot be articulated to the human species as many are not privileged to understand the animals communications. It is up to the human species to take the moral stance and create a movement that advances those moral rights.
Reagan has a totally different view in how to achieve the animal rights outcomes for the Animal Liberation Movement. He has an inherent values system that has merit depending again on how it is to be applied. .
The differing views of differing rights add to the benefit of animal rights campaigners, whether it is equal rights, moral rights or inherent values. The arguments of rights based on these inherent values have got excellent merit and must be told. The inherent values are based on sound principles, but the method of values, which have a scale of points, or able to be totalled as a measurement, of which have more rights associated with the inherent values is wrong.
Animals have inherent values, which of course would be different from ours. In the animal kingdom the inherent value of a good breeding mate is critical to the survival of species and yet we judge from the outside looking inwards. Our view of values has created the abuse and the need for rights for animals. .
The differences between the two philosophers are their methods of coming to an agreement on how animal liberation movements should be applied. Both have similar views by adopting methods that can create a moral view to allow the animal liberation movement to appeal to a wider audience.
