In a world in which Regan’s moral theory were true, all organisms that do not fall under the subject-of-a-life criterion lack inherent value and would not have moral rights. Coral is an example of a living thing that is not a subject-of-a-life. Coral lacks the advanced nervous system necessary to intentionally act to achieve a goal; have emotion, memory, beliefs, or desires; feel physical pleasure or pain; or have self-awareness. According to Regan, since corals lack inherent value, they do not have moral rights. Yet, corals are in fact valuable living animals to both humans and other nonhuman animals. Coral reefs provide an important ecosystem for life underwater, protect coastal areas by reducing the power of waves hitting the coast, and provide a crucial source of income for millions of people. Although coral reefs are clearly valuable, we continue to damage and kill these creatures for our own selfish needs. Damaging activities include coral mining, pollution, overfishing, and the use of pesticides. However, since we do not have a moral duty to organisms that aren’t subjects-of-a-life, then our damaging practices are acceptable. Regan’s moral theory gives us license to continue destroying coral reefs, because they do not have any moral rights. Therefore, I believe his moral theory is unacceptable.