In the Case for Animal Rights , Tom Regan considers a scenario where one must choose between killing either a human being or any number of dogs by throwing them from a lifeboat. Regan chooses the human being. His justification for this prescription is that the human being will suffer a greater harm from death than any of the dogs would. This prescription has met opposition on the grounds that the combined intrinsic value of the dogs’ experiences outweighs those of a human being. This objection assumes that the intrinsic value of a whole is simply the sum of the intrinsic values of its parts. This paper offers a justification for Regan’s prescription that rejects this assumption. It argues that the combined intrinsic value of a human being’s possible experiences might be greater than those of any number of dogs’ because the experiences of dogs do not exhibit sufficient variety for their intrinsic value to be additive.

中文翻译：

---

里根的救生艇案例和附加假设

在《动物权利案例》中，汤姆·里根考虑了一种情况，即必须选择从救生艇上扔下杀死一个人或杀死任意数量的狗。里根选择了人类。他对这个处方的理由是，人类将比任何狗都遭受更大的死亡伤害。这个处方遭到了反对，理由是狗的经历的综合内在价值超过了人类的内在价值。该反对意见假定整体的内在价值只是其各部分内在价值的总和。本文为 Regan 拒绝这一假设的处方提供了理由。