Animal rights

For many years there has been a major debate regarding animal’s rights. Human beings have been using animals for food, shelter, safety, clothing, and more recently for medical research. The main drawback of using animals for all these things is the way we treat them. According to Carl Cohen, he believes that animals have no rights and are not a main part of our society. Whereas Tom Regan, on the opposite side of the debate believes that animals do have rights and should be an equal part of society. Both arguments are strong and have valid points, but for me I would have to side with Tom Regan. Regan’s case seems much more logical in the sense that animals have a clear part of society.
Our cultural beliefs have changed throughout the years and we have become insensitive to how we take care of animals. As humans beings we have failed in recent years to give animals the respect and rights they deserve. Regan states that the animal’s rights movement is committed to a number of goals, such as “the total dissolution of commercial animal’s agriculture, and the total elimination of commercial and sport hunting and trapping.”(Regan, 2) If we are going to use them for medical research or for making our lives easier and safer, then we need to give them the rights they deserve. I am an owner of a dog, a dog that listens, speaks, and learns. He may not be able to understand the world around him but he’s a great asset to our family. My dog like many others understands a few words but still is smart. I do believe my dog deserves rights and equal fairness in the world we live in.
On the other hand, according to Cohen he doesn’t believe animals should be given any rights. He talks about obligations in his article. He says “We have obligations that do not arise from claims against us based on rights. Rights entail obligations, but many of the things one ought to do are in no way tied to another’s entitlement.”(Cohen, 95) What he’s saying is that humans have obligations we must