Summary Of Cohen's Position On Animals

Improved Essays
Cohen’s principle argument on his position on animals is that humans are morally autonomous whereas animals are not. What Cohen means by this is that humans are able to make moral choices and animals are not able to make their own moral choices or respond to moral claims. Due to the inability of animals to judge morality, they do not have rights, and thus the reason that they should not have any rights either. To illustrate this, Cohen provided an example about his dog. Many humans have obligations, and in this example Cohen’s obligation is to take his dog to the vet and take it on walks, because the dog is not able to take itself to the vet or have the right to do its daily exercise on his or her own. In Singer’s argument about animals, infants,

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Salami Tell You About Steiner “Animal, Vegetable, Miserable” is an op-ed guest column published in the New York Times in 2009, written by Gary Steiner. Steiner is a philosophy professor at Bucknell University who has published other animal rights books including Anthropocentrism and Its Discontents and Animals and the Moral Community. He attempts to open the minds of the readers to learn about their “normal” behavior. Things such as eating meat, going to zoos, or even enjoying circuses are what Steiner wants people to reconsider for their own behavior. Steiner states, “We should reevaluate the ideas we have inherited from Western philosophy that human animals are morally superior to non-humans” (“Gary Steiner”).…

    • 1062 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Daniel Balter 80-130 Essay 1 9-29-17 The Flaws Of The Argument From Marginal Cases The Argument from Marginal Cases is rooted in the idea that certain human beings are “marginal,” in that they are considered lesser, in their abilities or in their value, than other humans. For example, humans with mental or physical disabilities (and in some cases even infants), within the argument from marginal cases, are considered less valuable than the humans without these disabilities, and thus do not deserve the same ethical considerations. This argument becomes relevant when considered within the context of animal rights. The argument from marginal cases states that many animals have the same mental capacity as these “marginal” individuals, and…

    • 1429 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    I believe granting animals equal rights would be disastrous to the environment, and negate the greatest good for all. Humans have a responsibility to our environment from both a responsibility to all things that live in it, as well as from a self-preservation standpoint. Decisions regarding moral responsibility reign beyond the rights of each individual unit in the ecosystem, with consideration to the greatest good for all. However, totally acknowledgement of Calicott’s premise is difficult as a unit within the ecosystem.…

    • 675 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In the article “What’s Wrong with Animal Rights”, author Abby Hearne states that the current animal rights movement is “built upon a misconceived premise that rights were created to prevent us from unnecessary suffering.” This mixed with the misunderstanding of animal happiness and what it really means. This paper is written for people who are supporters of the current animal rights movement. The author Abby Hearne’s main argument in this essay is that our definition of animal rights is fundamentally wrong.…

    • 810 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    There is no doubting the fact that animals do not have rights in the conventional sense, or in any other sense for that matter. The reason is because they are not moral agents; they cannot do things out of a sense of right or wrong and cannot reason, as opposed to humans. Without reasoning, they are unable to have rights and therefore, are not responsible. Does that mean humans have the right to treat animals badly? Of course not; but that is for humans to decide, because animals cannot decide anything.…

    • 995 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Decent Essays

    In his essay, “Speciesism and the Equality of Animals,” Peter Singer argues that the standard for having a right to get equal consideration as others is the species’ “capacity for suffering and enjoyment” (205), and therefore, a species which satisfies the standard should be protected from speciesism. Speciesism is “a prejudice or attitude of bias toward the interests of members of one’s own species and against those of members of other species” (204). Singer states that many people’s voices arguing that intelligence cannot justify racism and sexism bring speciesism towards animals into…

    • 93 Words
    • 1 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Frey cites animals as having lesser value because of their lack of agency, however, the mere fact that animals cannot be moral agents does not exclude them from being moral patients. Humans need to exercise their agency, be morally responsible and give animals consideration because of their status as moral patients and their ability to suffer.3 This…

    • 1239 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The appearance of various right movements resulted in giving full specter of rights to millions of people and erased cultural confusion and tensions existed earlier. But the animal right movement faced us with another sort of cultural confusion. Some animal right activists believe that animals should be given more rights as creatures which can’t protect themselves. The arguments which the author brought to our attention were about how to treat the animals.…

    • 410 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The animal rights movement declares that animals have the same right to life and protection from suffering, as well as any other creature that can feel pain. Doctor of Philosophy, Tom Regan, justifies animal rights from the standpoint of logic. In his article “The Radical Egalitarian Case for Animal Rights”, the author takes a firm stance on this issue and claims that almost all human relationships with animals have the exploitative nature. At the same time, animals have the right to meet the needs and the implementation of their natural purposes. Tom Regan 's argument can be formulated as follows non-human animals have an equal right to respect and treatment for them, which means that hurting them or using as a raw material or a kind of resource…

    • 899 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    On the article “A Change of Heart about Animals”, Jeremy Rifkin argues that animals should be treated humanely because, according to science, the differences between animals and humans are less than what we think. He believes that animals should be given the rights that protect them from inhumane treatment and human consumption. He is telling us that we have to give them the same rights that a human possesses. In affirmation to Jeremy Rifkin, we should treat animals humanely because they also have a heart that can feel pain and a brain that can think.…

    • 773 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Peter Singer argues that it is morally unjustifiable to kill and eat animals for our own pleasure and as food. I personally agree with Singer’s argument that it is wrong to kill other species, using them merely as a means to our end because I firmly believe that their interests in not suffering is parallel to humans interests in not suffering. Animals are sentient beings, meaning that they experience both pain and pleasure as we do. Singer approaches this argument from a Utilitarian perspective, implying a principle of equality. Utilitarianism states that the moral worth of an action depends entirely on its contribution of maximizing the total happiness or pleasure among all people while minimizing the total pain or suffering.…

    • 1207 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In the essay “An Argument for Animalism” by Eric T. Olson, he concludes that personal identity is psychological continuity. I will disagree with Olson’s ideas about personal identity in the brain-transplant and the thinking-animal argument. The main point of the paper is about animalism. Olson’s argument is that each one of us is numerically identical to a human animal. Olson says that a person could exist who is not numerically identical to any animal, but it’s not the case for you and I. Olson, then presents his ‘Thinking-Animal Argument’ and the alternatives to that.…

    • 1160 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In comparison of “All Animals Are Equal and Moral Standing,” the “Value of Lives, and Speciesism” the key differences are based on the values outlined by the writers. In Value of Lives and Speciesism, Frey discusses the importance of animals feel pain and suffer just as humans do, but also admits that there are reasons such as necessary medical research for harming animals. On the other hand, Singer’s All Animals Are Equal focuses on the rights of hemostats in comparison to those who can make intelligent decisions. The question is should non-human animals have rights and how far do those rights reach? Both agree that animals should have rights, but their major differences including, pleasure and pain, hierarchy, consumption, and richness of life.…

    • 1155 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In All Animals Are Equal, the philosopher Peter Singer argues that we should extend the basic principle of equality to non-human animals. In order to justify this claim, the author examines the foundations of the basic principle of equality, establishing a moral system that takes into account the equal consideration of interests of living beings. Peter Singer states that in order for a being to have interests at all, one must take into account the capacity of suffering and enjoyment, or in other words, sentience. Throughout this chapter, Singer makes his readers see that if one rejects racism and sexism, one must also reject the idea of giving special consideration to the interests of one species over another one. In this essay, I will firstly reconstruct the arguments used by Singer to arrive at the conclusion that all animals are equal.…

    • 905 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Student Course Date Singer’s Principle of Equal Consideration of Interest In his seminal work, Animal Liberation, Peter Singer, puts forth the principle of equal consideration of interest in which he argues that for any being that possesses interests, those interests must be considered to be correspondingly morally significant with the identical interests of another being. Singer applies this principle to all sentient beings and uses sentience as the crucial characteristic for admissibility into the moral society (Singer 57). Singer’s argument has been challenged numerous times, this one by Francis and Norman.…

    • 988 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Superior Essays