You must have Credits on your Balance to download this sample
Pages 4 (1004 words)
Name: Instructor: Course: Date: Animal rights 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.
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. ...
Not exactly what you need?