Research in the Disciplines
13 March 2013
Cohen, Carl, and Tom Regan. "Do Animals Have Rights?" The Animal Rights Debate. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2001. 91-102. Print.
Carl Cohen writes this piece debating whether or not animals are entitled to rights. This article actually ends up concluding they animals do not have a right to rights, but Cohen subsequently makes points that not only contradict his assumption, but also strengthen the points of my argument. Cohen involved Tom Regan, an author I am also using in my paper, whom is quoted with points supporting animal rights. While Cohen argues that animals do not have rights because animals are not gifted with a “moral mindset” as humans are, Regan claims that a being that feels deserves not to suffer. Although Cohen makes valid points in the case against animal rights, which I can use to explain my counter-arguments, he, in my opinion, has not proven his case to me in his article. By taking his piece, which I find weaker than it should be, I will use the points he has supporting animal rights to prove his own points against them wrong. Author:
Carol Cohen is a member of the philosophy department in the University of Michigan who teaches many classes in the Residential College. He has published many works in the areas of philosophy, medicine, along with legal journals. Key Terms and Concepts:
The idea of “inherent value” is mentioned repeatedly. Whether an animal has “inherent value” has been established as true. Cohen quotes, “My dog has inherent value, and so does every wild animal, every lion and zebra, which is why the senseless killing of animals is so repugnant” (Cohen 100). By including the phrase “senseless killing” Cohen is single-handedly proving my point for me. When it comes to unnecessary and cruel treatment of the animals it should be understood that these actions are morally wrong or “repugnant”.
Another concept Cohen instills is the...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document