Do Animals Have A Say?: Comparative Analysis of Animal Rights, Human Wrongs and Proud to be Speciecist

1188 Words 5 Pages
The subject of animal testing for human advantages has always been a debatable topic. It is still undecided whether the use of animals for human benefits is morally right. On the other hand it is scientists and researchers who think that animals are good testing subjects because of various reasons such as preventing harmful products or finding cures to diseases. The two essays “Animal Rights, Human Wrongs” by Tom Regan and “Proud to be Speciesist” by Stephen Rose talk about the concerns of animal rights but display the opposite viewpoints on the use of animals. Regan's argument has a more broad concept to the matter while Rose takes a deeper dive into exacts with an opinionated personal vibe. As the authors continue writing it is obvious …show more content…
Here, Regan’s ethos is displayed because he is showing who is accountable for the protection of these irreplaceable animals. He clearly provides us with information on the group of people who butcher these blue whales and gives us a hands-on illustration on how the butchers operate the whaling process. “But the crew has other things on their mind. It will take hours of hard work to butcher the huge carcass, a process now carried out at sea” (336). Along the way, Regan is trying to prove why humans should treat animals with respect instead of killing them by saying “the onus of justification must be borne by those who cause the harm to show that they do not violate the rights of the individuals involved” (339). Regan is trying to make the hunters prove that they are not hurting or endangering any whales and to deem their actions as justice. Regan’s credibility overshadows the narrow-minded ideas of Stephen Rose. Rose’s argument about using animals for science shows that his arguments or opinion are only based off of scientific facts and logical thoughts. Since Rose is a biology professor and a scholar himself, his point of view is valid and holds some type of worthiness or credibility. He says “The first statement is plain wrong; the second claim that animals have “rights”, is sheer can’t” (Stephen 342,343). He also mentions “speciesism” and says that activists are hypocritical and narrow-minded because they too are