Tom Regan on Kind Arguments against Animal Rights and for Human Rights

In Mylan Engel Jr & Gary Comstock (eds.), The Moral Rights of Animals. Lexington Books. pp. 65-80 (2016)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Tom Regan argues that human beings and some non-human animals have moral rights because they are “subjects of lives,” that is, roughly, conscious, sentient beings with an experiential welfare. A prominent critic, Carl Cohen, objects: he argues that only moral agents have rights and so animals, since they are not moral agents, lack rights. An objection to Cohen’s argument is that his theory of rights seems to imply that human beings who are not moral agents have no moral rights, but since these human beings have rights, his theory of rights is false, and so he fails to show that animals lack rights. Cohen responds that this objection fails because human beings who are not moral agents nevertheless are the “kind” of beings who are moral agents and so have rights, but animals are not that “kind” of being and so lack rights. Regan argues that Cohen’s “kind” arguments fail: they fail to explain why human beings who are not moral agents have rights and they fail to show that animals lack rights. Since Cohen’s “kind” arguments are influential, I review and critique Regan’s objections . I offer suggestions for stronger responses to arguments like Cohen’s.
(categorize this paper)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Upload history
Archival date: 2017-08-12
View other versions
Added to PP index

Total views
509 ( #8,574 of 52,802 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
43 ( #14,394 of 52,802 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.