Carl Cohen's Do Animals Have Rights?

Braulio Banuelos

Professor Cuddy

Phil 102

10 May 2014

Animal Equality

After reading “Do Animals Have Rights?” by Carl Cohen, the central argument of the article is that rights entail obligations. Cohen examines the syllogism that all trees are plants but does not follow the same that all plants are trees. Cohen explains the syllogism through the example of hosts in a restaurant. They have obligation to be cordial to their guests, but the guest has not the right to demand cordiality. Cohen explains using animals, for example his dog has no right to daily exercise and veterinary care, but he does have the obligation to provide those things for her. Cohen states that animals cannot be the bearers of rights because the concept of rights is essentially human; it is rooted in, and has force within, a human moral world. Humans must deal with rats-all too frequently in some parts of the world-and must be moral in their dealing with them; but a rat can no more be said to have rights than a table can be said to have ambition.

Cohen explains that neither right nor wrong has a right against the other. Rights are of the highest moral consequence, but animals are amoral, they do no wrong ever, because in an animal’s world, there are no rights. Cohen explains that a lion has the right to kill a baby zebra left unintended for the sake of her cubs but us humans have no right to intervene. Cohen states rights are universally human; they arise in a human moral world, in a moral sphere. Rationality isn’t the issue; the capacity to communicate is not at issue, nor is the capacity to suffer, an issue; the issue is that humans project their morals onto amoral things.

“Animal Liberation” by Peter Singer, displays an opposing central argument, which a...

... middle of paper ...

...nger states “Equality is a moral idea, not an assertion of fact. There is no logically compelling reason for assuming that a factual difference in ability between two people justifies any difference in the amount of consideration we give to their needs and interests”. Singer argues that, as there is no justification for unequal treatment of human beings based on capacity, it is also unjustifiable to treat human and non-human animals differently based on their capacities.

My views closely relate to those of what Cohen says because we have no right to intervene with the animal world or project our view of morality onto them, especially when it leads to a discrimination of rights. However this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t protect animals or care for them. We do these things for animals not based on their rights or our obligations, but because they feel just like we do.