Mary Anne Warren And Animal Rights

3. Animal Rights

Many philosophers including Tom Regan and Mary Anne Warren disagree with Carl Cohen and say that animals do have rights. According to Warren’s weak animal rights position, morality and reason are maximized where no sentient creatures cane be killed without good reason. Tom Regan’s strong animal rights policy is comparatively unreasonable because it advocates for halting all killing because every sentient being has value. Prior to coming to the conclusion that animals do have rights, Regan dispelled three wrong routes on coming to this conclusion. Animals should have the opportunity to pursue their satisfactions, not be deliberately harmed, and not killed without a good enough reason. In this paper I will argue that animals do have some rights according to Warren’s weak animal rights position.

By definition, an animal creature that is neither a human nor part of the plant kingdom, lacks cell walls made of cellulose and can not produce its own food. A right is an entitlement to be or not to be in a certain state or be or not perform a certain action. According to the Warren’s weak animal rights theory, animals do have rights, but they are weaker than that of the human being. Rights for sentient beings are based on their varying levels of mental sophistication. Humans are able to listen to reason and make purely moral decisions that animals cannot. Rationality does not make humans better than other animals, but allow them more avenues to nonviolent resolution and cooperation that lower division life forms cannot. Cohen would argue that since animals cannot make moral decisions they are hence not moral agents and should have rights. Human beings are born without the ability to make moral judgments and can lose their morality to mental handicap, yet they are given