Who Is Carl Cohen's Better Argument For Animals?

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

The main issue in his article is if animal research humane and if it should be aloud. However, there are a couple of other arguments that branch off of the main argument. One of these being does animal research makes an individual a bad person. Many Animal Rights activists believe that this is an issue, because animals are being tortured and killed. Medical researchers, however, think that animal research is ultimately helping humans by using animals to find vaccines and cures for diseases (2).

Cohen argues that not every single human meets the requirements for acting as a moral agent, but they all still receive rights (including the exemption from biomedical testing) because they are part of a collective group (Cohen 96). Animals do not receive rights because, as a whole, they lack the relevant prerequisites; he rests a large part of his argument on the premise that “…it is impossible for [animals], in principle, to give or withhold voluntary consent or to make a moral choice” (Cohen 96). The errant, questionable grounds behind this statement render an inherent double standard in Cohen’s reasoning. Animals have demonstrated altruistic tendencies of the kind Cohen describes. For instance, Frans de Waal illustrates the ability within monkeys and elephants to cooperate as well as demonstrate values of fairness and reciprocity through his experiments (“Moral Behavior in Animals” TED talk). As a whole, animals thus do not lack the relevant prerequisites that exempt them from being tested on for human

When discussing the issues faced from an ethical standpoint of animal rights it is important to consider the benefits animals bring to people and then question what rights animals are entitled to due to this (Fisher). Taking that into account, one must ask if giving them rights could possibly overstep on human rights and would animals even be able to enjoy rights (Fisher). It is often debated that the benefits and knowledge through experimentation of animals have led to life-saving advancements in the field of science and medicine (Fisher). The other side of the debate argues that even if these past benefits are justified, these type of experiments are no longer necessary and it is deemed unacceptable that wrongful treatment of animals is done for this purpose (Fisher). When it comes to the question of

How could one not feel guilty when looking into a test animal’s eyes and seeing all of the pain and suffering that they have endured? Over 75-100 million animals are used for scientific and medical research per year. (Baumans) Animals should not be used for scientific and medical research because it is unethical, humans and animals are not genetically identical resulting in failed tests, and there are other techniques to conduct research.

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.

Many scientist are violating animal rights when they use them in research. Animals rights have been violated when used for research such as being tortured, in excruciating pain and having a slow death.​ Tom Reagan, a philosophy professor states that animals should be treated with respect and not be reduced to trash for the use of experiments. "Animals have a basic moral right to respectful treatment, this inherent value is not respected when animals are being reduced to mere tools in scientific experiments."(Reagan, 26)​ When animals are being used for research many rights of the animals have been violated.​

This dichotomy remains relevant as certain groups of animal rights activists continue to progress research towards more humane protocol (Galvin & Herzog, 1992), while research advocates believe such practices are necessary and should involve less hindrances in order to fulfill research goals (Lyons, 2011). Precedent suggests that the majority of surveyors support animal research due to its benefits in furthering medical applications (Dolan, 2002; Lund, Morkbak, Lassen, & Sandoe, 2014), yet animal rights advocates have endured a historic conflict. Such advocates have perpetuated paradigmatic discussion for contemplating the weaknesses in animal research policies (e.g. the subjective scaling of research severity – mild, moderate, severe) (Lyons, 2011). When analyzing the perspectives of advocates and adversaries through history and studies, the ability to determine the ethicality of animal research is impossible. More legislation against animal research is not necessarily the answer, but one political solution has been to settle the dissension through a personalized assessment of individual cases (Rollins, 2006). If animal research continues, a case-by-case analysis of research studies is the only ethical manner to appease the tension between advocates and adversaries.

Debates about animal research are often polarized. On one hand, increased knowledge, medical treatments or enhanced animal production are seen to justify any harm. On the other, animals have rights (Fisher, 2014). Ethics, alongside a more informed understanding of the benefits of research and of the aims of animal rights, may in fact produce a more sophisticated common ground between both sides of the debate.

Mohandas K. Gandhi once said, “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated”. What, then, does it say about the people of the United States, for allowing the deaths of millions of innocent animals for the benefit of research, that in most cases is not even useful? 100 million animals are killed each year due to animal testing or experimentation (PETA,1). In the past, it was acceptable to use animal testing for scientific research, but now that there are other viable alternatives to the testing of innocent animals, such as in-vitro, stem cell testing, non-incasing imaging techniques, and micro-dosing. Animal testing should only be used in cases where said drug or treatment will treat life-threatening diseases. Animal testing in this day and age is both unnecessary and cruel, as there are multiple alternatives and the most of the time is not useful in human research.

Carl Cohen defines a right, as “a right, properly understood, is a claim, or potential claim, that one party may exercise against another” (Cohen, pg. 588). The question at hand now is, in accordance with this definition of a right, do animals qualify to possess rights? Cohen conveys animals lack the ability to exercise their rights against another; thus disqualifying them from possessing them; additionally, he argues in order to claim rights, you must be able to make moral claims, which animals do not have the capacity to accomplish; hence, using animals for medical advancement research is morally permissible. Cohen prominently discusses animal’s failure to draw moral conclusions to construct his argument against animal rights.

Regan states that the use of animals in research assumes that their value is reducible to their possible utility relative to the interests of others. Regan states that it is wrong for us to use animals to be eaten, exploited for money or sport, or surgically manipulated. Regan has a Kantian view of how we should treat animals in research and in general. The possible utility of animals approach shows that people believe that we have no duties directly to animals, that we owe nothing to them, that we can do nothing that wrongs them. One problem with this view is that it is anthropocentric and does not take account of the possible sufferings of other species. Animals are subject to painful and inhumane treatment during biomedical research and testing, they have entered into a contract that they have not given contest to. The violation of animals’ rights means that decisions are made for them, and usually do not benefit them. It is wrong for humans to decide what should be done with animals.

Animals and people are kinda the same because they feel, experience pain and think. Making researches on them is a way to violated their rights because they do not have any choice at all. They are constantly in pain and it causes permanent damages and all because they do not have someone who can defend them. It is important to take action and let people know the rights of the animals that they deserve the same as humans and just because they do not talk we are going to take their rights. Some people agree that because they are unable to talk they do not feel but they are wrong because it is worst their pain silently because they cannot defend

I don’t believe that animals have rights. I would tend to agree with Carl Cohen when he states that “a right, properly understood, is a claim, or potential claim, that one party may exercise against another” (Pojman and Vaughn, 2014, pg. 816). In the legal realm I completely agree that Cohen is correct because animals can’t have rights. They also to our knowledge at the moment have the capacity for moral judgment. However, we as humans have the capacity for moral judgment and I think that we should not torture animals. It is difficult though because as Cohen points out biomedical research requires it to be tested and it is seen as more acceptable to test it on animals than humans. While I’m not entirely sure how we could solve this issue I don’t think millions of animals should be killed. I don’t think that we are morally obligated to be vegetarians and while animals don’t have rights they really shouldn’t be tortured. Animals that are being used for

Peter Singer’s argument for determining when animal experiments are justified is stated in his papers “All Animals are Equal” and “Tools for Research”. His argument in regards to animal experimentation and speciesism is very thought provoking and makes the readers review their own biases regarding human/animal relations. Although some of the ideas the author brings forward, such as using mentally retarded or orphaned babies for experimentation, are radical, they do make one think about the biases we have as a species. Also, his thoughts on mammals and birds ability to feel pain being