Comparing Two Philosophies Of Tom Regan's And Carl Cohen

Is it ethical for animals to have the same rights as humans? During this paper I will present the views of both sides. I will try my best to give the reader a chance to come to there own unbiased conclusion. I will talk about the key areas of animal ethics. I will present the facts and reasoning behind the arguments over Animal cruelty, testing, hunting, and improper housing. My conclusion will hopefully bring us closer to answering many of the question surrounding “Animal Rights and Ethics”.

The fundamental question that defined the content of the article was "What gives us the right to exploit other organisms as we see fit?" (Suzuki, 2008, p.681). Humanity had a long history of using animals in testing due to biological similarities (Suzuki, 2008, p. 680). He put a mirror to people by questioning the ways animals were treated in those scenarios, and if the methods and product were worth the suffering of animals. To do this he looked at examples of scientific studies to alleviate human illness, as well as use of animals for entertainment. By contrasting the harsh realities animals face with the rationalization of their captors, the article underlined not only humanity's unlimited capacity for cruelty but also the factors that allow it to keep on doing the same thing no matter what the truth of the matter is. The article was written for those who those who do not know about the scientific exploitation of animals as well as those who have not in the past seen the idea of captivity and scientific treatment of

A highly popularized and debated topic in our modern society is the promotion of animal equality or animal rights. Many people, philosophers included, have a wide range of opinions on this topic. Two of the philosophers studied in class who discussed animal rights were Peter Singer and Carl Cohen. Singer, who has the more extreme view on animal rights, believes that all animals are equal and that the limit of sentience is the only defensible boundary of concern for the interest of others (Singer, 171). While Cohen, who’s view is more moderate than that of Singer’s, believes that animals do not have rights, stating that to have rights one must contain the ability for free moral judgment. Though, he does believe that we as

Throughout history, humans have utilized nonhuman animals for the benefit of mankind. This tendency increased as civilization developed, and presently, necessitated by staggering population growth and technological progress, human use of animals has skyrocketed. We eat them, we breed them, we use them as test subjects. Some people have begun to question the ethics of it all, sparking a debate on animal treatment and whether or not they have rights. In a paper on the subject, Carl Cohen lays out his definition of rights, explains their relationship with obligations, and uses these ideas to present the argument that manifests clearly in his piece’s title, “Why Animals Have No Rights”. THESIS

As a college student, I have seen things over the years that has concerned me on the world's approach to animal rights. Animals are still not treated fairly as humans are. In Vicki Hearn’s article, “What’s Wrong with Animal Rights”, she did not provide the audience with strong examples of ethos and logos but provided her audience with a numerous amount of pathos. People who own, work or care about animals and their opportunity to live as equal as humans do.

Peter Singer’s article, titled “All Animals Are Equal,” takes an approach on the long standing debate of human versus animal equality. His stance is strong and clear. Humans must not experiment on nonhuman animals (hereinafter referred to as ‘animals’) because they should be treated as equals: “equal, that is, to each other and to humans” (Singer 112). Singer appears to be both ignorant and mistaken in his discussion of animal rights. Instead of focusing on the positives that come from animal experimentation, he instead focuses solely on the ethics behind it. Though this ethical debate is not new, and many have concluded that it is, in sorts, a necessary evil, Singer still attempts to persuade the reader. His arguments are unsound, and his reasoning far-fetched, as Carl Cohen argues in his article, “The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research.” One of Singer’s specific arguments is that speciesism and racism can be compared to one another because they are equal in their discriminatory actions. This is not only untrue, but it also diminishes the struggles of suffering from racist acts by further encouraging the thought that black people are not equals to anyone but animals.

Regan introduces his stance in The Case for Animal Rights on how we view non-humans as less than the intrinsic value. Regan’s mentality is about how we have this sense of value for each other, and how we should translate that respect and value to others, like animals. We treat “immoral humans” (criminals) with basic human respect (food, shelter, and hygiene). While, there are some people that do not take care of animals with the same respect as we treat humans. Animals are a part of the world that we live in, but we have grown used to seeing animals as lower than us. Regan’s viewpoint shows how we should see all beings as equals with inherent value. Regan sees this as part of the Respect Principle, a principle where we treat individuals who have inherent value in ways that respect their inherent value (322). His main argument is that everything has a subject-of-life criterion. Subject-of-life criterion is the philosophy that everything is alive with inherent value.

“Nearly as many, 68 percent, were concerned or very concerned about the well-being of animals used in ‘sports’ or contests as well as animals in laboratories (67 percent) (Kretzer, 1).” Many people question whether an animal is capable of thought and emotions. Others feel as though animals are the equivalent of humans and should be treated as such. Since the 1800’s, animal rights has been a topic that has several different sides including two extremes. If animals can react to their environment, emote, and are aware of things done to or with them, then they should have similar rights to humans.

There are arguments made that would support the eating or medical testing of animals, but there are also other arguments that do not support eating or medical testing of animals. When a person views these arguments using a virtue ethics position, the result would have to be in accordance with the view that the right actions are produced by the virtuous characteristic. The question asked is what would the moral status of animals be according to a virtue ethicist’s perspective; and if virtuous ethics is can be applied to the animal’s moral status? There are two types of moral statuses, a moral agent and moral patient: A moral agent is an individual whose actions can be established by moral reasons; a moral patient is an individual who needs

A question we are asked at least once in our lives is, “Are the rights reserved for humans and the rights reserved for animals equal in the amount of importance or value?” Peter Singer, a utilitarian, and Tom Regan, a deontologist both believe in animal rights. However, they don’t agree on every single aspect regarding the rights for animals. Singer believes humans and animals both have rights, but they don’t have the equal capacity to feel pleasure or pain. On the other hand, Regan’s views differ. He thinks that the rights for humans and animals are of equal value. I agree with them both. Animals should have rights and be treated with respect, but when it comes to saving my sister or my dog, I’d save my sister.

He claims that animals are not a part and parcel of a society of moral agents that have the capacity to respond to any moral claim. Cohen in his fierce arguments claims that animal experiment is justifiable, and this is a way that would help in reducing pain and sufferings to human beings. According to him, human beings deserve better treatment than other animals. He claims that using animals in the experiments would help in improving the welfare of human beings (Miller 90). Cohen tries to justify his claims by saying that we do not have any direct obligation not to inflict pain and suffering on the animals. He further says that when animals are used in experiments, we do not violate any of their rights since they do not have any right to be violated.

In “The Case for Animal Rights,” Tom Regan emphasizes his philosophy on animal and human equality. After reading further into his work, he illustrates a societal system that belittles animals and their significance to our own existence. Regan conceptualizes that animals won’t have real rights unless we change our beliefs. We need to acknowledge a problem. After identifying the issue, we must recognize that there is a need for change in society. In addition, he also reiterates the importance of the populace changing the way they view animals. The way society views animals will create a snowball effect that will influence politicians to also believe in animal rights.

In “The Case for Animal Rights” written by Tom Regan, the author analyzes reasons for why all beings should have rights, but argues in particular why animals should have basic rights, like humans. “I regard myself as an advocate of animal rights- as a part of the animal rights movement”(Regan 337). The goals of the movement include the following: not allowing the use of animals in science, commercial agriculture, and the eradication of commercial and sport hunting or trapping. Regan blantly dismisses people who claim to believe in the rights of animals, but do not put forth these goals. He rejects the thought that using animals for cosmetic research is a violation of their rights and is unacceptable, but if it is cancer research then it is permissible. “You don’t change unjust institutions by tidying them up”(Regan 337) Regan goes on to break down his paper into views which he believes that people hold in regard to animal rights, he then counters these views with thought experiments that explain why suffering and pain are only feelings that add to the fundamentally wrong system that allows animals to be seen as resources. In this paper, I will discuss Regan’s arguments, possible objections to his arguments, and provide answers to those objections using the author's point of view.

Compassionate human beings have examined the thought of animal rights only during the 20th century, when a philosopher, Peter Singer, has published his book, Animal Liberation, in 1975. His book served as a catalyst for the ongoing Animal Rights Movement giving animal equality in life, and eliminating speciesism — the assumption of human superiority. The movement had gained numerous achievements such as stopping huge beauty products manufacturers from testing their products on animals, neuroscientists have declared consciousness in animals exist, and acts being passed (Lin, 2016). In spite of the reasons to discredit the use of lab animals, professionals should still have the freedom to use lab animals because the experiments involving animals effectively provide new knowledge in research, develop current understandings, and reduces possible damage to humans.

In our world, protests occur each day on the issues of animal cruelty and human rights, but when the issues are put together which will reign over the other? The author Peter Singer of “All Animals are Equal” and “Tools for Research” presents his argument for determining when animal experiments are justified. The author starts his paper with a counter argument, questioning if one would be willing to let thousands of people die if those people could be saved by experimentation on a single animal. The answer is a unanimous no; in our culture we value human life over everything else. The author follows by asking the reader if they would be prepared to carry out their experiments on humans who are mentally retarded or orphaned babies, if that