Biomedical Research: Carl Cohen Vs. Peter Singer

Philosopher Carl Cohen stands by the use of animal testing in biomedical research. He states and believes that animals are incapable of moral agency and therefore lack moral rights. Within Cohen’s view of animal testing, our obligations towards animals are minimal and they don’t compare in importance with our responsibilities to beings that have rights, meaning, human beings. On the other hand, Peter Singer’s view on animal testing expands to animals the principles of equal consideration of interest. Singer explains and believes that animal’s interests are not due equal consideration because animals lack the moral standing of humans. These two views conflict with one another as well as many opinions of other people who are for or against testing on animals. …show more content…
The first argument is that testing on animals wrongly violates the rights of animals. The second argument is that it wrongly imposes on sentient creatures much avoidable suffering, although these arguments seem valid, they are flawed. They cannot be considered valid because of the misconceptions of animal rights and the misunderstanding of the calculation of consequence. Animals lack a capacity of free moral judgment. Animals are not beings that are capable of exercising or responding to moral claims, therefore, they do not have any rights and they cannot have any rights. This saying that because animals cannot agree or verbalize consent, they don’t have any rights and they can be tested and experimented on. Humans though, have moral capacities and therefore have rights and cannot be tested on without consent. For research animals this is not the case because there is nothing wrong and no one is violating their rights because they do not have any