Accepted 12th January,
Since human beings are basically Carnivores, meat eaters, destroying animals for food is Common. The demands of humans for tastier meat and quality non human animal products such as milk, egg and so on, have caused the food industry to resort to different ways of raising non human animals for food, some of which cause other animals to suffer until they are slaughtered. Some non human animals are fed food and chemicals for good yield, fatness without regard -to their likes or dislikes or any concern for their comfort or the pain such condition may bring to them. The same story goes for non human animal experimentation. This paper therefore examines Tom Regan's argument that animals should not be killed (right to life) or maltreated or treated 'inhumanly'or inflicted pain upon (right to dignity).The implication of which is that non-human animals should not be used to further human interests such as using non-human animals for food, healing, business, entertainment, transportation e.t.c. Using the method of philosophical argumentation, analysis and criticism, the paper reveals that Regan's claim that non human animals should not be used to further human interest can not be sustained, that is, there is nothing wrong with using non-human animals to further human interests because human animals who have inherent value also are used a times to further other human animal interests. .
Keywords: Human beings, Non human animals.