The Animal Rights Debate PDF
Preview The Animal Rights Debate
FRANCISCO SAN SOUTH LIBRARY PUBLIC PUBLIC LIBRARY S.S.F. WEST ORAAIGF AVENUE NOV 2001 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO LIBRARY WEST ORANGE AVENUE 3 9048 05147446 2 AninO/§CARD The Rights Debate ? POINT/COUNTERPOINT Philosophers Debate Contemporary Issues Series Editors: James P. Sterba and Rosemarie Tong This new series provides a philosophical angle to debates currently raging in academic and larger circles. Each book is a short volume (around 200 pages) in which two or more prominent philosophers debate different sides of an issue. For more information contact Professor Sterba, Department of Philos- ophy, University ofNotre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46566, or Professor Tong, NC Department of Philosophy, Davidson College, Davidson, 28036. A Sexual Harassment: Debate by Linda LeMoncheck and Mane Hajdin The Death Penalty: For and Against by Louis P. Pojman and Jeffrey Reiman Disability, Difference, Discrimination: Perspectives on Justice in Bioethics and Public Policy by Anita Silvers, David Wasserman, and Mary B. Mahowald Physician-Assisted Suicide: Pro and Con by Margaret P. Battin, David Mayo, and Susan M. Wolf Prayingfor a Cure: When Medical and Religious Practices Conflict by Margaret P. Battin, Peggy DesAutels, and Larry May A The Abortion Controversy: Debate by N. Ann Davis and Janet Smith Sexual Orientation and Human Rights by Laurence M. Thomas and Michael E. Levin The Animal Rights Debate by Carl Cohen and Tom Regan The Animal Rights Debate Carl Cohen and Tom Regan ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD PUBLISHERS, INC. Lanham • Boulder • New York • Oxford S.S.F. PUBLIC LIBRARY WEST ORANGE AVENUE ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD PUBLISHERS, INC. Published in the United States ofAmerica & Rowman by Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 4720 Boston Way, Lanham, Maryland 20706 www.rowmanlittlefield.com 12 Hid’s Copse Road Cumnor Hill, Oxford 0X2 9JJ, England Copyright © 2001 by Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. NATIONAL BOOK NETWORK Distributed by All rights reserved. No part ofthis publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photo- copying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission ofthe publisher. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Cohen, Carl, 1931- The animal rights debate / Carl Cohen and Tom Regan. — cm. (Point/counterpoint) p. Includes bibliographical references and index. — ISBN 0-8476-9662-6 ISBN 0-8476-9663-4 (pbk. alk. paper) : 1. Animal rights. I. Regan, Tom. II. Title. III. Series. HV4711 .C63 2001 — 17973 dc21 00-069044 Printed in the United States ofAmerica @> ™The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements ofAmeri- — can National Standard for Information Sciences Permanence ofPaper for Printed Li- brary Materials, ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992. 11 Contents Preface vii IN DEFENSE OF THE USE OF ANIMALS CARL COHEN 1 The Moral Problem ofAnimal Use 3 2 The Factual Setting ofAnimal Experimentation 1 3 Rights and Interests 17 4 IfAnimals Had Rights 2 5 Why Animals Do Not Have Rights 27 6 Why Animals A*e Mistakenly Believed to Have Rights 41 The Moral Inequality of Species: Why “Speciesism” Is Right 59 8 Spurious Scientific Arguments against the Use ofAnimals 69 9 What Good Does Animal Experimentation Do? 85 10 The Proven Accomplishments ofAnimal Research 119 THE CASE FOR ANIMAL RIGHTS TOM REGAN 11 From Indifference to Advocacy 127 12 Animal Exploitation 135 13 The Nature and Importance of Rights 151 v vi Contents 14 Indirect Duty Views 157 15 Direct Duty Views 175 16 Human Rights 191 17 Animal Rights 207 REPLY TO TOM REGAN CARL COHEN 223 REPLY TO CARL COHEN TOM REGAN 263 Index 311 About the Authors 323 Preface The continuing debate over the moral status ofanimals is often characterized by more heat than light. Those who use animals, on farms and in laborato- ries, are thought callous and immoral by many who contend that animals have rights and that lulling them in our interests cruelly infringes upon those rights. Those who defend the use of animals in science and agriculture often regard their critics as extremists who sometimes substitute terrorist acts for rational A discourse. great gulf separates the partisans of the two sides, and so deep has this gulf become that even the hope for genuine understanding of each side by the other is commonly lost. We We seek to rejuvenate that hope. aim to create, with reasoned argu- ment, an environment of mutual respect, in which the controversy over the moral status ofanimals may be pursued rationally and in good spirit. We, the two authors of this book, believe that the animal rights debate can be con- — — ducted must be conducted with reasoned discourse. Do We animals have rights? stand at opposite poles in answering this ques- tion. As joint authors of this volume, we have sought to make our respective cases in turn, against animal rights and for them, in a manner that is appro- priate in view of the importance of the issues that divide us. Our disagree- ments are profound, but we fully agree in this: that important moral questions like those explored in these pages can be resolved only if the inquiry is both We patient and fair. agree that ad hominem attacks are no substitute for rea- soned argument; great care must be taken, we believe, to understand those with whom we differ most strongly. We agree that it is possible, and even obligatory, to show respect for persons whose values conflict with our own. When the moral conflict is very sharp, as in the issues here discussed, we think the need for thoughtfulness and goodwill is especially great. — Each ofus is confident that rational deliberation informed, balanced, and — Who penetrating supports his conclusion with overwhelming weight. is Vll Vlll Preface right we leave for readers to decide. We are content to have the two sides of the animal rights debate put openly and clearly before the public. On issues of community concern, wise policy is most likely to result when the best arguments on all sides have been forcefully expressed and thought- fully heard. Where disagreement is intense, as here, this is particularly true. “The beliefs we have most warrant for,” writes John Stuart Mill in On Lib- erty, “have no safeguard to rest on, but a standing invitation to the whole We world to prove them unfounded.” share that conviction. Mutually we have devised a format that we think will support reasoned dis- course. We write separately. The arguments on both sides, we believe, can be put clearly and forcefully in comparatively short compass, and with a mini- mum ofjargon. In Part I (by C. C.) the case is made against animal rights; in Part II (by T. R.) the case is made in their defense. Each ofus has the oppor- — tunity then to respond to the other C. C. in Part III, T. R. in Part IV. How we argue is in some ways as different as what we argue. And this, we agree, is unavoidable. Throughout we have each conceded to the other the We unrestricted liberty to frame issues in the manner that he chooses. are mindful ofthe fact that how the issues are approached is itselfamong the top- ics open to possible criticism. Despite our many differences, we are ofone mind in affirming the profound practical importance of the debate over animal rights. Our disagreements are theoretical, certainly, but they are much more than that. Decisions about the moral permissibility of how humans treat other animals must have great im- pact on our conduct in daily life. What we conclude about animal rights will have consequences for the food we eat and the clothes we wear, and it will have direct bearing on the kinds ofscience we think morally justifiable. Every one of us (we both believe) ought to deliberate thoughtfully in coming to judgment. Our shared hope is that this volume will make a genuine contri- bution to this process. Cohen Carl Tom Regan
The list of books you might like
