Final answer:
Tom Regan in his work, 'The Case for Animal Rights,' asserts that animals possess rights similar to human beings, marking the answer as True. Regan's argument extends moral consideration to nonhuman animals, advocating a rights-based approach to their treatment. When it comes to ethical research, extra precautions should be taken to minimize animal suffering and uphold their well-being.
Step-by-step explanation:
Tom Regan argues in, The Case for Animal Rights, that animals have rights in the same way that human beings do, which makes the correct answer to the question A. True. Regan's philosophy is based on the premise that individuals, including nonhuman animals, are subjects-of-a-life and therefore have certain inherent rights. He presents a rights-based approach that extends moral consideration beyond humans to include animals, suggesting that they should not be used merely as means to human ends.
Regarding the concept of natural rights, the correct premise is c. People have fundamental rights that cannot be revoked by human-made laws or political leaders. This establishes the idea that rights are inherent to individuals and not simply granted by government or authority.
In terms of ethical treatment of animals in research, since animals cannot consent, enhanced precautions should include minimizing suffering and ensuring well-being, providing proper shelter and care, reducing the number of animals used, and preferring alternative methods whenever possible. The overall aim should balance scientific advancement with the ethical imperative to respect animal welfare.
Ronald Dworkin's position contrasts with Regan's as Dworkin focuses on humans being the basis for moral status, while Regan includes animals within the scope of rights and moral considerations. The debate extends into other areas like environmentalism where animal rights are seen as a natural extension of human rights, challenging narrower human-centered philosophical positions.