"The Case for Animal Rights" written by Tom Regan, promotes equal treatment between humans and non-humans. I agree with Regan's point of view, as he suggests that both humans and animals share the experience of life and therefore share equal intrinsic value. For starters, Regan argues that people tend to believe that animals are "unaware" of pain, and since humans are able to announce when they are in pain, it is therefore considered morally wrong to harm a human, rather than a an animal. This type of thinking falls under the view of indirect duty, which suggests that animals have no direct relationship or bond with humans, unlike humans with their own species. Regan explains that neglecting animals as capable of feeling pain is in itself morally wrong, as is the view of indirect duty (1989). Second, Regan introduces a second view, known as contractualism. Although he suggests many flaws in this view, he also agrees that it somewhat supports his view of intrinsic value. This particular view identifies that because humans have the ability to understand rules, they are capable of accepting and practicing moral actions and avoiding immoral acts. Therefore, human beings have every right to be treated with respect. Regan explains that this is problematic, because children are not necessarily capable of the same level of thinking as adults, meaning that the above-mentioned view cannot be applied. Despite this, children have every right to be protected, simply because they have parents or guardians who assume this so-called "contract". Regan argues that if this is the case for children, then why can't animals have a contract too? Since they do not have the same level of thinking as an average adult. Nonetheless… half of the paper… if you are unlikely to treat a human being in a disrespectful and offensive manner, then why would you do the same to another living breathing being, regardless of the type of species that hosts it? And. In conclusion, I agree with Tom Regan's perspective of the rights view, as it explores the concept of equality and the concept of fair treatment of animals and humans. If a being is capable of living and experiencing life, then it is more than likely that it is capable of experiencing pleasure and pain, except in a few cases. If humans are still treated respectably and fairly, even if some cannot vote or think for themselves, then it is right that animals who lack some of these abilities are treated equally. As Regan says, "pain is pain, wherever it occurs" (1989). Works Cited Regan, Tom. "The Case for Animal Rights" University of California Press 2004