Regan’s position in The Case for Animal Rights has the same limitation as Singer’s utilitarianism. This is evident in Regan’s lifeboat example. “Imagine 0ve survivors are on a lifeboat. Because of limits of size, the boat can only support four. All weigh approximately the same and would take up approximately the same amount of space. Four of the 0ve are normal adult human beings. The 0fth is a dog. One must be thrown overboard or all will perish. Who should it be?” Regan’s answer is that “no reasonable person would suppose that the dog has a ‘right to life’ that is equal to the humans’.”26 The dog should unquestionably be thrown overboard, because “the harm that death is, is a function of the opportunities for satisfaction that it forecloses, and no reasonable person would deny that the death of any of the four humans would be a greater prima facie loss, and thus a greater prima facie harm, than would be true in the case of the dog.”27 Moreover, “numbers make no diference in this case. A million dogs ought to be cast overboard if that is necessary to save the four normal humans.”28