Discrimination or Discovery? Throughout civilization’s history, many cruel forms of religious, racist, and sexist discrimination have existed in and dominated parts of the world. This discrimination has taken form as concentration camps, slave trades, and caste systems. An evolving platform that has caused some to speak out against discrimination recently, however, does not even involve humans. Animal rights activists have labeled this as “speciesism” and involves the discrimination of animals and the belief that humans are superior due to their species. Many people have spoken out about this issue on either side, but the way that they present their argument will allow for a true decision on which side prevails. Tom Regan and Stephen Rose
…show more content…
The argument presented by Tom Regan in “Animal Rights, Human Wrongs” suffers because it relies too heavily on the audience’s sympathy; Stephen Rose’s claim in “Proud to Be a Speciesist,” however, provides a minimum of emotional appeal and successfully establishes reasoning based on reliable credibility to …show more content…
Regan insists that logically people should not discriminate against animals, not because they lack the justification to do so, but because he will not accept their justification and has not yet found one that he will. He states, “we must insist that, just as in the case of harming human beings, so also in the case of harming animals, the onus of justification must be borne by those who cause the harm to show that they do not violate the rights of the individuals involved, and that this justification cannot be carried out by citing morally irrelevant facts, e.g., facts about how much pleasure or profit are derived” (42). Essentially, Regan believes that those who test on animals must justify their actions by proving that they do not violate the rights of the animals that speciesist do not believe have rights, and that facts about the benefits will not suffice for this purpose. This illogical reasoning confuses readers until they believe that they agree with Regan’s point. Rose, however, explains his logic in a quite simpler way. He affirms, “There is no way, for instance, that the biochemical causes of the lethal disease diabetes, or its treatment with insulin, could have been discovered, without experiments on mammals” (554). This fact is irrefutable and easy to understand so that readers can view the reasoning behind animal
The argument presented by Tom Regan in “Animal Rights, Human Wrongs” suffers because it relies too heavily on the audience’s sympathy; Stephen Rose’s claim in “Proud to Be a Speciesist,” however, provides a minimum of emotional appeal and successfully establishes reasoning based on reliable credibility to …show more content…
Regan insists that logically people should not discriminate against animals, not because they lack the justification to do so, but because he will not accept their justification and has not yet found one that he will. He states, “we must insist that, just as in the case of harming human beings, so also in the case of harming animals, the onus of justification must be borne by those who cause the harm to show that they do not violate the rights of the individuals involved, and that this justification cannot be carried out by citing morally irrelevant facts, e.g., facts about how much pleasure or profit are derived” (42). Essentially, Regan believes that those who test on animals must justify their actions by proving that they do not violate the rights of the animals that speciesist do not believe have rights, and that facts about the benefits will not suffice for this purpose. This illogical reasoning confuses readers until they believe that they agree with Regan’s point. Rose, however, explains his logic in a quite simpler way. He affirms, “There is no way, for instance, that the biochemical causes of the lethal disease diabetes, or its treatment with insulin, could have been discovered, without experiments on mammals” (554). This fact is irrefutable and easy to understand so that readers can view the reasoning behind animal