The Protection of Animal Rights According to Carl Cohen - Research Paper Example

 Animal rights is also known as animal liberation. It is the giving of animals’ humane treatment. This is a philosophical belief that animals also have rights. Animals are to be protected against cruelty, brutality and exploitation. These laws that give protection to animal rights also govern the treatment which animals are projected to in medical research and slaughter for human consumption. Advocates have presented different approaches on animal rights. There is the protectionist side that looks at treatment of animals. The abolitionist side present the view that animals have a right not to be property. The utilitarian philosophy focuses on animal suffering as they are denied their rights (Regan 34). This paper will defend the rights of animals which is against Cohen argument. It will also look at the positions taken by Singer and Reagan. Carl Cohen is a professor of philosophy. He is well known for his prominent contribution in philosophy. Carl argues that animals have no rights. He says that, animals are not part of a community of moral agents. He continues to mention that animals are in capable of answering on moral issues. These animals therefore do not and can not have rights. Cohen’s views use of animals in lab experiments as not a violation of animal rights. The reason being they have no capacity to make moral claims. Cohen asserts that, although animals have no rights it’s, our duty not to cause unnecessary suffering to animals. Before we preside further, we should have a clear definition of rights and duties. A Right is a potential claim, practised in a moral community. Duty is a social obligation to perform something for legal or moral reasons. These definitions will help in building a defence case against Carl’s argument that animals don’t have rights. According to Carl, for one to have moral claims he or she must have autonomy. The demand for moral claim shows that you have a right. This implies that if you lack autonomy, you don’t have rights. This view lacks truth in it. The argument brought by Cohen is that some humans lack rights for example, the Senile. The right of someone should be the duty to others. For example, if you have a right of privacy it would be the duty of your neighbour not to interfere with your privacy. In a world where people who have duties and not adhere to them, the people have no rights. It should be noted that, the duty of someone does not entail the right of another. It may be your duty to open for a woman the car door but, it is not her right to demand for that treatment. According to Cohen, having rights you must have duties or responsibilities. This is an idea that is baseless. Having a right does not mean you must have a duty. According to Cohen, this means that infants do not have rights. Cohen argues that the use of marginal case argument is not suitable in this case to defend animal rights. He argues that we should treat individual according to group membership. He says the infant belongs to a group that has moral agent hence; the infant is entitled to its rights. Cohen believes that groups of animals have no moral agent. This brings as to his point of moral and rights which lacks moral subtracts the right of animals (Regan 56). This idea can be discredited as it has no ethical perspective. It goes against the principles of moral well being of all animals. We are supposed to be treated as individuals. It is wrong to judge a person by his group’s characteristic. For example, the stereotyping that all Arabs are terrorists. Tom Regan is a professor and American philosopher. His specialization is in animal rights. He advocates for animal right were sport hunting should be abolished, abolition of use of animals in research lab experiments and dissolution of commercial animal agriculture. Regan views that the whole system is wrong on the way we treat animals. Many people view that it is right to use animals for experiments to find cancer cure but, it is wrong to test toxic cosmetic on animals (Regan 67). What Regan views as wrong is the system is that he views animals as resources. He believes that many people view animals as alternative for; game hunt, conduct lab experiments and to be eaten. Regan request of people to change there believes with regards to animals. Regan believes that animal rights have reason beyond sympathy over animals suffering. He urges that people elected in public office to be the driving force for changes that laws of animals be enacted. Tom says that we should not assume that animals do not feel anything indicating that only human pain is morally unethical. Tom Regan is a utilitarian. In this philosophy issue, you approach your actions in a morally way. The actions you intend to make must be evaluated to see who you are affecting and the best course of action. The option picked determines where your moral lies. Utilitarianism rests in egalitarianism as this is count of everyone’s interest. It should be noted that utilitarianism has no equal moral rights. It relates in the difference of individuals. This is so because it does not allow room for equal inherent value. Utilitarianism satisfies the interest of individuals. However, the problem with the utilitarianism is that the theory is aggregative meaning that we have to create a list of satisfactions and frustrations creating a weigh balance. After you make a choice that is best balanced morally, it should not be the best on personal interests. It should be noted that the best aggregate is not the best choice for each individual. Regan’s argument is observed to be about moral principles as it is about subject- of- life. He says that humans value their lives emphasising that the moral principle of valuing life should be accorded to all subjects that have life. Peter singer is a professor specialized in applied ethics. He is an Australian Jewish philosopher. He supports right of animals. Singer draws comparisons of oppressions of groups in the community. He talks about the black liberation movement that advocated for blacks equality and end of discrimination. Singer continues giving examples of movements of minority groups such as the gay, Spanish-Americans who where demanding for their rights. When the women campaigned for their rights to voting and equality, it was viewed as a joke since people’s belief that discrimination against women was acceptable. The argument put forward is, humans are entitled of having rights and he is stressing the need of extending this liberation to animals (Regan 78). He talks of equal consideration since, we are different beings. Singer stresses that the equality of groups does not mean that all will be treated the same. Singer gives an example of women’s right to abort. This does not mean also men have a right to abortion since they don’t get pregnant. The end result is that different groups need different considerations which will lead to different rights and different treatments. Singer’s argument is on ethical conduct where we should think beyond our individual’s interest. He believes that we should consider others interest apart from our own. Work cited Tom Regan, P. S.. The Case for Animal Rights. New York: : Basil Blackwell. NOBIS, N. (2004). Carl Cohen’s ‘Kind’ Arguments For Animal Rights . (1985) Journal of Applied Philosophy , 1. Read More