NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
In Animal Liberation, Peter Singer argues that animals feel pain even though they do not have language governed by rules of syntax, so animals have rights. In contrast, Carl Cohen, The Case for the Use of Animal in Biomedical Research, asserts that animals lack moral capacity and animals therefore have no rights. Animals have no rights as Cohens statement although animals have been helpful to humans for over centuries, supplying labors as well as foods. In my perspective, animals do not have rights as equal as humans do, in considering the quality of their language, the usefulness, and the effectiveness of experiments.
Language is one of the most important elements to separate humans from animals. As Cohens argument, language enables humans to exercise or respond to moral claims but not animals (p. 251). Therefore, language entitles humans to experiment on animals. Of course, nonhuman's such as animals also communicate through sounds or body movements but they do not use developed language to communicate. In other words, animals are able to communicate between same species and sometimes with other species. However, animals are expressing no more than their basic instinct and this is what draws a line between humans and animals.
Meanwhile, the language that humans use based on rules of syntax is totally different because it enables humans to express moral capacity and, consequently, claim rights. This is why humans have rights but not animals. As increasing to use animals as experimenting on animals, there also gives rise misunderstanding about using of them. Animals have played significant role as being used in experiments. Enormous advancements made in treating many diseases over the past couple decades are due to experimentation on animals. Cohen also mentions the part how much animals have attributed to benefit humans.
The misunderstanding about experimenting on animals is usually distorted by animal rights activists and media. They do not look great benefits achieved through experiments for humans and animals. The effectiveness of using animals for test is much higher than other substitute. Realistically, there is no other good substitution right now instead of experimenting on animals. Animals have very similar organic system as humans do, so it is the primary reason that animals are used as source of research. It is difficult to test any kind of medicine to plants to get accurate feedback that is telling the medicine is safe enough to use to humans.
This is the reason why animals have been used mainly for research. In conclusion, I think Cohen holds the more tenable view than Singer, in exploring animals language, necessity and effectiveness of animal use in the research. Singer assists to explain that animals also feel pains regardless of language but he did not suggest any substitutes. On the other hand, Cohen presents realistic proposal such as trying to find substitute for and reduce experiments on animals, illustrating why animals do not rights.
Free research essays on topics related to: humans and animals, communicate, experiments, experimenting, cohen
Research essay sample on Animal Liberation Do Animals Have Rights
