Animal research is something that has been going on for many decades. This is how we have come up with many of our modern-day medicines. Does this morally justify the use of a hundred animal subjects in order to yield statistically relevant data? In my point of view nothing justifies hurting a living being. In this paper, I will be explaining why I believe animal research isn’t morally right, with the help of Philosopher Peter Singer’s viewpoints. I will also present a counter-argument with what Carl Cohen’s point of views are on this topic. I will then reply to Cohen’s argument explaining why and how it fails. Each day there are experiments being done on animals of all kinds in laboratories across the U.S. These poor animals are taken
…show more content…
One of those people is Philosopher Carl Cohen, who believes that animals have no rights. “A right is a claim that one party may exercise against another” said Cohen. His argument is that since animals can 't comprehend what a right is or who holds it they have none, so obligation and rights have to be differentiated. What he means is that when you have a pet you are obligated to feed it and take it to the vet, but they still have no rights. In the reading he mentions that we kill animals for food, clothing, and shelter but when it comes to testing in animals we think it isn 't right. To him one can 't be more justifiable then the other, which is why says we have an obligation to increase the total amount of animal research to protect human subjects and benefit future human patients. …show more content…
It is unethical and unjustifiable, because no living being should ever have to deal with any unnecessary pain. All beings have rights and those rights need to be considered to be equal enough that one doesn 't deal with more suffering then the other. There are people who agree with me like Philosopher Peter Singer, and there are also people who are against me like Philosopher Carl Cohen. Each of the philosophers have their reasons as to why they believe what they believe, no one person is right we all are entitled to our own
One of those people is Philosopher Carl Cohen, who believes that animals have no rights. “A right is a claim that one party may exercise against another” said Cohen. His argument is that since animals can 't comprehend what a right is or who holds it they have none, so obligation and rights have to be differentiated. What he means is that when you have a pet you are obligated to feed it and take it to the vet, but they still have no rights. In the reading he mentions that we kill animals for food, clothing, and shelter but when it comes to testing in animals we think it isn 't right. To him one can 't be more justifiable then the other, which is why says we have an obligation to increase the total amount of animal research to protect human subjects and benefit future human patients. …show more content…
It is unethical and unjustifiable, because no living being should ever have to deal with any unnecessary pain. All beings have rights and those rights need to be considered to be equal enough that one doesn 't deal with more suffering then the other. There are people who agree with me like Philosopher Peter Singer, and there are also people who are against me like Philosopher Carl Cohen. Each of the philosophers have their reasons as to why they believe what they believe, no one person is right we all are entitled to our own