Compare Tom Regan, Carl Cohen and Peter Singer in Terms of Animal Rights
813 WordsMay 19, 20114 Pages
Tom Regan, Carl Cohen, Peter Singer
Animal rights are one of the most controversial issues today. There has been endless debate about whether or not animals have rights. Philosophers attempt to come up with the moral conclusions by taking in account the many different standpoints and presenting their related arguments. In his essay “The case of animal rights”, Tom Regan, a professor of philosophy at North Carolina State University, defends his view that the center of our moral concern should not bring the suffering on animal as well as treating animals in a certain way. In other words, we should treat animals as if they are our property. We should only use them to benefit us and hurting them is an action that is not morally…show more content…
He thinks we must at least treat animals humanely, but this does not mean we need to treat them as if they have rights. He also compared the differences between animals with brain damaged persons, senile or young in terms of the ability to make claim which is essential to being a person. That’s why these people are still part of our moral community, but animals are not. Moreover, he strongly supports to the increasing in the use of animals for medical experiments. He agrees that we actually need to increase the number experiments to avoid risking human lives because the increase in longevity , decrease in pain , the significant numbers of lives saved , the quality of human life all depends on such those research or experiments.
Cohen, Carl. “The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research.” New England Journal of Medicine 315:865-870 (1986). Print.
Regan, Tom. The Case for Animal Rights. Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 2004. Print.
Regan, Tom and Singer, Peter, “All Animals Are Equal.” Animal Rights and Human Obligations. Eds. Tom Regan and Peter Singer. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1989, 148-162. Print.
: Prentice-Hall, 1989, [article