Regan and Cohen hold very different views on animal rights. While Regan says that animal cruelty is never acceptable, no matter the circumstance, Cohen states that animals do not have rights because they are not morally capable. I agree with Regan’s view on this issue because I believe animals possess their own respective place in society. Regan’s view on animal rights is much more empathetic than Cohen’s. The biggest aspect of his argument is the inherent rights view, which states that we have direct duties to all individuals, both humans and animals, because they have rights. Regan believes that we have these direct duties to all “experiencing subjects of a life”. This entails individuals that are capable of feeling emotions and the effects of living. Such beings have …show more content…
According to Cohen, animals do not have rights. He believes that in order to have rights, the being must have moral understanding, moral responsibility, the ability to make claims, and the capacity to act for reasons. Since animals cannot explain the rationality of their actions, they do not have a place in our moral community. To Cohen, rights override all other interests and are the most important aspect of morality. Because animals are unable to coherently understand morality, they do not have rights. He argues that experimentation on animals is acceptable because it saves many human lives. If losing the life of one animal would save the life of a human, he finds it a moral obligation to do so. Cohen supports his argument on the basis that a being’s group membership determines whether or not it has rights, not by individual cases. He analyzes rights as a sphere. Since animals cannot give voluntary consent or choices, all animals fall outside of the sphere while humans lay inside the sphere. To Cohen, marginal cases such as infants and the severely disabled are irrelevant because they belong to the membership of humans, a morally capable
Colin Blakemore, a neuroscientist, and an advertisement advisor to the Food Standard Agency (FSA) of Great Britain. Gave his perspective during an interview on the issues of animal rights. He support the use of animals in medical research and suggested that drugs should be tested on humans because it will cut the time and cost of new drugs. Blakemore showed his contentment that animals do not have rights because they don’t earn them and they can’t be responsible for themselves by their own behavior. We give them rights, but they don’t know about it. Blackmore asked, “Where we draw the line if not between humans and animals.” He believes that instead of people debating on animal rights they rather talk about responsibilities. The reason for
As Regan himself states, ‘I believe that the philosophy of animal rights is the right philosophy.’ (Ryder, 1992, p.55) Proving how strongly he feels on the subject. Similar to Singer, Regan was central in ‘providing intellectual justifications for granting a higher moral status to animals.’ (Garner 1997, p.1) Other animals do not deserve to be treat as inferior to human beings because having a point of view betokens having fundamental rights. This includes the rights not to be made to suffer, not to be confined and not to be killed by human agents. Animals have rights as beings with an interest in respectful treatment. Unlike Singer, Regan directly states he is against the use of animal captivity when he writes, ‘the philosophy of animal rights calls for an end to the capture and training of wild animals, for the purposes of entertainment.’ (Ryder, 1992, p.60) As SeaWorld, many wildlife parks, zoos and circuses exploit animals as a means of entertainment for money, Regan argues they must be brought to an end as it is against their rights as living, rational and autonomous creatures. Kalof and Fitzgerald clear up Regan’s claims in their book ‘The Animals Reader: The Essential Classic and Contemporary Writings’ when they state ‘the position he articulates in his writings is that animals, like humans, have moral rights, and treating them as if
Regan, Tom. “The Case for Animal Rights.” In Animal Rights and Human Obligations, 2 ed.. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1989.
Cohen proposes that rights are a claim that must be exercised, and since animals cannot exercise their rights they cannot have rights. Furthermore, Cohen suggests in order to have rights, “the holder of rights must have the capacity to comprehend rules of duty, governing all including themselves” and thus must have a “moral capacity” (817). Hence, it follows that animals cannot have rights since they lack a free moral judgment and are thus are unable to understand morality or laws that govern society. Therefore, Cohen believes rights can only be given to those able to claim
Society has placed humans to be the highest life form because of their ability to think and reason and give consent. On these grounds it has allowed society to become numb to any injustice done to animals in any way. This essay will argue whether the subjugation of minority women is linked to the way society views and treats animals by defining current animal rights, the Women’s rights Movement and the process by which the minority is seen as an animal.
Regan begins the essay by stating that " Not a few of people regard the animal rights position as extreme, calling, as it does, for the abolition of certain well-entrenched social practices rather than for their “humane” reform " ( Regan 619 ) . The writer also compares animal rights with humans based on extreme moral positions, such as rape, child pornography and racial discrimination, claiming that “. . . when an injustice is absolute, as is true of each of the example just cited, then one must oppose it absolute. It is not reformed, more humane child pornography than an enlightened ethic calls for: it is abolition that is required “(Regan 620). The writing is totally against hunting animals for sport, dressing in animal skins, and breeding of animals for slaughter. In his view any animal sacrifice is no different from a crime perpetuated a human being. Sacrifice any animal should stimulate the same emotional reaction that a crime a human being. This belief is considered by many as a vision "extremist” of animal rights and generally not widely accepted.
As an advocate of animal rights, Tom Regan presents us with the idea that animals deserve to be treated with equal respect to humans. Commonly, we view our household pets and select exotic animals in different regard as oppose to the animals we perceive as merely a food source which, is a notion that animal rights activists
Animals can be a man's best friend; however, they can also be ones worst enemy after passing certain boundaries. Peter Singer who wrote Animal Liberation gave valid points in my opinion because animals do have a right to live and we should give them their space. Humans take everything for granted and never seem to learn until it too late. Today slaughterhouses are abusing animals in disturbing ways which has to change. I will agree with Singers concepts on animals because they have a right to live a peaceful life like humans; they have a life ahead of them once they are born. Singer argues that animals should have their interests considered throughout their lives. Singer wants to eliminate speciesism from our thoughts which is, a human discriminatory belief that all other animals are not as good as them therefore they do not have rights and we could do what we want to them. We should not be the only types of "animals" in this earth who has a set of rights we should abide.
In his essay ‘Three Wrong Leads in a Search for an Environmental Ethic: Tom Regan on Animal Rights, Inherent Values, and Deep Ecology’, Partridge claims that Singer and Regan both miss a significant element to the nature of rights: they only have a moral basis, not a biological basis. For Partridge, how alike human beings and other animals are in terms of biology is irrelevant. What matters instead is that other animals show no capacities of rationality or self-conscious, which is what makes us moral. For Partridge, this consequently excludes other animals from being rights
Regan T. The Struggle for Animal Rights. International Society for Animal Rights. Inc. darks Summit, PA. 1987.
Although I do find Cohen’s defence of speciesism to be the strongest, I do not find it to be strong. The speciesist philosophy, while extremely beneficial to humans, cannot be rationally justified to be morally acceptable. I do not claim that it is our responsibility to treat every animal as if it were human since this would be detrimental to modern medicine, agriculture, and human health. This is especially true in babies who cannot survive on a vegan diet due to a lack of many vital nutrients (Planck, 2007). What I do conclude is that we must treat cognitive nonhuman animals with much more morally relevancy and not abuse these beings for our own petty gains. To judge different species by different standards is an unjustified practice and a problem that must be more seriously addressed.
... concept. An animal cannot follow our rules of morality, “Perhaps most crucially, what other species can be held morally accontable” (Scully 44). As a race humans must be humane to those that cannot grasp the concept. Animals do not posess human rights but they posess the right to welfare and proper treatment by their handlers.
"The Case For Animal Rights" written by Tom Regan, promotes the equal treatment of humans and non-humans. I agree with Regan's view, as he suggests that humans and animals alike, share the experience of life, and thus share equal, inherent value.
Tom Regan, “The Case for Animal Rights,” in In Defense of Animals, ed. Peter Singer (Oxford:
With regards to the responsibility to animals a deontologist would ask themselves, do animals really feel emotion, have experiences, and is treating animals cruelly really okay? According to Tom Regan, as a moral human-being it is our duty to protect and respect animals as if they were our friends or family.