Carl Cohen's 'kind' arguments for animal rights and against human rights.
Carl Cohen's arguments against animal rights are shown to be unsound. His strategy entails that animals have rights, that humans do not, the negations of those conclusions, and other false and inconsistent implications. His main premise seems to imply that one can fail all tests and assignments in a class and yet easily pass if one's peers are passing and that one can become a convicted criminal merely by setting foot in a prison. However, since his moral principles imply that nearly all exploitive uses of animals are wrong anyway, foes of animal rights are advised to seek philosophical consolations elsewhere. I note that some other philosophers' arguments are subject to similar objections.
Nobis
Nathan
N
Philosophy Department, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627-0078, USA. nobs@mail.rochester.edu
D032761:Animal Experimentation / Q000941:ethics; D017087:Animal Rights; D000818:Animals; D006806:Human Rights; D006801:Humans; D028681:Moral Obligations; D028723:Personhood; D010684:Philosophy; D013045:Species Specificity; D014824:Vivisection / Q000941:ethics