Running Head: ANIMAL RIGHTS DEBATE 1
Animal Rights Debate
Student's Name
Institutional Affiliation
Student ID Number
Course Name and Number
Assignment Number
Date
In virtually each human society currently, animals are regularly killed for food or used
for scientific research purposes. Most individuals wear animal skin like leather and fur and
, ANIMAL RIGHTS DEBATE 2
validate the practice of murdering animals for these products. The two primary arguments on
animal rights come mainly from two philosophers; Tom Reagan and Carl Cohen. Both Cohen
and Regan argue for the similar ultimate conclusion that a radical change is required in how
humans treat animals, mostly through widespread legal protection protracted to at least some
animals. However, the two get to this conclusion in dissimilar ways. Cohen method is pegged on
the moral philosophy of utilitarianism and on disquiets regarding equality, whereas Regan’s
method is fixated on the type of values both animals and humans possess. In this paper I argue in
support of Carl Cohen’s argument of use of animals in biomedical research.
The use of animals for research matters in medical studies is extensively criticized on two
grounds. Firstly, because it is wrongly contravening the rights of animals, and secondly, because
it illegally enforces on sentient creatures much unnecessary misery (Regan, 1987, p. 180). I
support Cohen’s argument because neither of these two reasons is sound. The first depends on a
mistaken comprehension of rights and the second depends on a fallacious calculation of effects.
Cohen castoffs arguments by those supporting rigorously limitation or excluding animal testing,
then supports the position that humans have a strong responsibility to perform such tests to ease
suffering and prolong human lives. Cohen states rights as “entitlements or possible prerogatives
in a community of ethical agents” (Cohen, 1994, p. 314). Because animals have no capability of
making moral entitlements, animals do not have rights.
In retort to Cohen’s contention, a judicious animal rights activity will always try to lessen
Cohen’s contention to an illogicality by making an assumption same to the following; “Human D
is more principled than Human E, hence Human D has more entitlements than Human E”. This is
an illogical inference. A person’s rights are not ascertained by how principled that individual is,
but instead if they have the capability to be moral and make moral assertions. Animals lack such
Animal Rights Debate
Student's Name
Institutional Affiliation
Student ID Number
Course Name and Number
Assignment Number
Date
In virtually each human society currently, animals are regularly killed for food or used
for scientific research purposes. Most individuals wear animal skin like leather and fur and
, ANIMAL RIGHTS DEBATE 2
validate the practice of murdering animals for these products. The two primary arguments on
animal rights come mainly from two philosophers; Tom Reagan and Carl Cohen. Both Cohen
and Regan argue for the similar ultimate conclusion that a radical change is required in how
humans treat animals, mostly through widespread legal protection protracted to at least some
animals. However, the two get to this conclusion in dissimilar ways. Cohen method is pegged on
the moral philosophy of utilitarianism and on disquiets regarding equality, whereas Regan’s
method is fixated on the type of values both animals and humans possess. In this paper I argue in
support of Carl Cohen’s argument of use of animals in biomedical research.
The use of animals for research matters in medical studies is extensively criticized on two
grounds. Firstly, because it is wrongly contravening the rights of animals, and secondly, because
it illegally enforces on sentient creatures much unnecessary misery (Regan, 1987, p. 180). I
support Cohen’s argument because neither of these two reasons is sound. The first depends on a
mistaken comprehension of rights and the second depends on a fallacious calculation of effects.
Cohen castoffs arguments by those supporting rigorously limitation or excluding animal testing,
then supports the position that humans have a strong responsibility to perform such tests to ease
suffering and prolong human lives. Cohen states rights as “entitlements or possible prerogatives
in a community of ethical agents” (Cohen, 1994, p. 314). Because animals have no capability of
making moral entitlements, animals do not have rights.
In retort to Cohen’s contention, a judicious animal rights activity will always try to lessen
Cohen’s contention to an illogicality by making an assumption same to the following; “Human D
is more principled than Human E, hence Human D has more entitlements than Human E”. This is
an illogical inference. A person’s rights are not ascertained by how principled that individual is,
but instead if they have the capability to be moral and make moral assertions. Animals lack such
