動物是否有權利仍未獲定論，但也已形成某種程度的共識，如動物非機器、會受苦，應得道德考量。本文簡述動物權利論爭的起源和發展，陳示本文的論題外，析論雷根的動物權理論。由於本文的進路是直接由雷根不滿於辛格和效益主義以動物為苦樂的容器著手，因此，先陳述辛格的保護動物利益的理論，作為後續討論的起點。進而申論雷根何以必須提出固有價值的觀念，由生命主體說明何以動物具有這種價值，以申論動物何以具備生命權，人類不能對動物加以傷害，並確立人類對動物有直接的義務。 為了表明雷根理論的理論效果和強度，進一步分析雷根如何回應反動物權理論的挑戰。 引述辛格回應雷根的指控，說明何以他的偏好效益主義並無所謂以生命作為容器之說。 最後，進一步反省動物權所引生的爭議，建立可能有不同構想和可能出路。 Whether animals have rights is a controversial issue. However, we have certain consensus, is brought to a certain level of common awareness. For instance, animals are not machines. They suffer. They deserve moral of considerations in a basis. This thesis investigate the foundation and development of the controversy of animal rights, with Regan’s theory of animal rights as our focus. This thesis starts with Regan’s criticism of Singer’s theory that animals are the receptacle of wilities and leads from Singer’s defense of benefits of animals to the subsequent discussion on Regan’s theory of animal rights. Regan introduces the concept of inherent value. He explains why animals possess this value as a subject of a life, and thus possess the right of life. This right also establishes the direct duties of human beings to animals. Second, in order to show the special features of Regan’s theory, we analyzes how Reagan responds to the challenge posted by Cohen’s anti-animal rights theory. Third, we discuss the response from Singer to Regan’s accusation, and how Singer’s preference utilitarianism does not view animal as a respectable only. Finally we the thesis ends with a discussion of some possible alliterating other than animal rights.
