Regan Vs Cohen Animal Rights Essay

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

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