The Animal Rights Debate

by Carl Cohen, Tom Regan

Do all animals have rights? Is it morally wrong to use mice or dogs in medical research, or rabbits and cows as food? How ought we resolve conflicts between the interests of humans and those of other animals? Philosophical inquiry is essential in addressing such questions; the answers given must have enormous practical importance. Here for the first time in the same volume, the animal rights debate is argued deeply and fully by the two most articulate and influential philosophers representing the opposing camps. Each makes his case in turn to the opposing case. The arguments meet head on: Are we humans morally justified in using animals as we do? A vexed and enduring controversy here receives its deepest and most eloquent exposition.

Genres: Philosophy, Animals

323 pages, Paperback

First published June 26, 2001

About the author

Carl Cohen (April 30, 1931 – August 26, 2023) was an American philosopher. He was Professor of Philosophy at the Residential College of the University of Michigan, in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Reviews

[Worthless Bum · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book was informative as to Tom Regan's highly influential deontological rights based approach to the animal rights debate, as well as the opposing "welfarist" view of a colleague of his, Carl Cohen. However, I find both of their arguments to be inadequate.

Carl Cohen justifies speciesism on the grounds that only human beings are moral agents, in the Kantian sense of having the capacity for rational evaluation. He does not explain why humans which do not possess this trait (e.g. infants, severly fucktarded morons, etc.) are still regarded as having rights. Thus is he inconsistent. His argument only addresses the use of animals in medical research, completely ignoring all other uses of animals. In arguing for a utilitarian justification for medical experimentation on animals, he makes no attempt to give us an idea of how many animals are experimented upon in medicine, how much pain and suffering they must endure, or how many of them die. In short, a reasonably detailed utilitarian cost-benefit analysis with respect to animal experimentation is seriously lacking in Cohen's argument.

The problem I have with Tom Regans arguement on the other hand, is that he calls for the categorical prohibition of medical experimentation on animals, irrespective of how beneficial those procedures may be for humans or animals.

[Christopher · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was rather disappointed in this book. I have very little prior experience with this topic, and this book was my primary entree to it; for that purpose, I suppose that the book did its job. I feel that I now have a decent grasp on who the players in the field are (the different camps) and how they self-divide, but as far as arguments go, I think the book is a wash. Neither side offered very impressive arguments, and the book was pretty redundant. It could have been much shorter than its 300+ pages. This is a book in need of an editor!! Still, if you know nothing at all about the debate, it is probably a good place to start. I would recommend this book for classroom use only in the case of a class devoted solely to this topic (not one of several controversial issues), and only if it could be supplemented by more tightly argued (and more concisely written) scholarly journal articles.

[Edward · Rating 4 out of 5]

The best animal rights philosopher dukes it out with the best (?) anti-animal rights philosopher. It is just obvious that Regan makes a better case.