Regan Vs Cohen Animal Rights

...

When evaluating these 2 stances, I feel that I am more in favor of Carl Cohen’s view that animals do not have rights but we do have obligations to them. Animals are not bound by morals or any structure or laws that they must adhere to and thus we cannot place them at the same level of humans. In my opinion our rights as humans are morally binding in the sense that we have our rights as long as we operate within the rules of society and act according to our moral obligation. Animals on the other hand cannot be said to operate according to any lawful infrastructure and thus cannot be protected under the same rights. Of course this does not mean we should be free to kick any puppies or club any seals that we come across but that is not because they have the right to not be harmed but because we as moral beings should not do such acts without reason. Even without considering moral issues, human lives are inherently more valuable than animal lives because of what we can do and what we have the potential to do. Because of this I believe there is merit in speciesism and that experimenting on animals is morally right because of its positive impacts on humans and how much good it can do. Would it not be morally wrong to stop developing a cure for cancer because it would require animal experimentation?

While I do not entirely disagree with Regan’s arguments, I do find flaws in his argument that all life have the same inherent value. I believe that every life, even in humans is different in value because we all have different experiences, memories, abilities, and skills that make us different. I do not believe that a murderer’s life has the same inherent value as a doctor on the basis of what they contribute to society and the moral ground that they stand upon. One takes lives and one saves them, there is no moral argument that can be made to justify that they both have the same right to live. If the earth was exploding and the last spacecraft had 2 spots left, I am sure it is easy to make the decisions of which of the two would be left behind. Of course this is an extreme example, but it highlights my point that the life of a bird or fish is not equivalent to that of a human. Even domesticated animals like dogs and cats cannot be said to hold the same value simply because they are not as a capable and not as valuable and they do have as a high as a moral standard or capacity as human beings.