Morgan Weintraub, DVM - Advanced Veterinary Specialists

Morgan Weintraub
21903181
Word count: 1,114
The most arguable topics regarding animals are whether they possess any necessary
rights or not. Supporters argue that as animals do not own any reasoned thinking, they should not
be given rights equal to that of humans. But at the same time question arises about the rights
regarding the disabled people. The controversial issue is if animals due to their inability of
reasoning should not be given fundamental rights, should a disabled person suffer from such
inequality as well? The answer is no. While there is a comparison being made between animals
and human beings, one should always focus on the group instead of an individual. The
significant differences between the above two groups will support the argument that is against
the rights of animals.
Unlike animals, human beings deserve various types of necessary rights. To claim rights,
one party needs to exercise power over the other (Cohen, “The Case for the Use of Animals in
Biomedical Research, 865). Hence, animals are unable to bind each other to ‘laws,’ and
therefore, will be unable to safeguard their rights if the latter existed. The concept of rights has
become synonymous to humans as they possess rational as well as moral thinking and are
capable of protecting their rights. As animals are incapable of making ethical decisions, they are
not given any rights. Traits in animals are very similar to that of humans. These traits include
fear, empathy, intuition, love and agility. However, moral judgments cannot be displayed by
animals (Cohen, “The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research, 867). While being
incapable of making moral judgment animals are also not self-legislative. “Rights arise and can
be intelligibly defended, only among beings who do or can, make moral claims against one
another” (Cohen, “The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research, 865). What Carl

Cohen is trying to explain here is that those who do not possess any moral reasoning are not
given any rights. While discussing the natural behavior of animals, Cohen tries to understand
their manners. Humans devise laws according to the morals that they are expected to follow for
maintaining a safe as well as peaceful life. “Animals do not have such moral capacities. They are
not morally self-legislative, cannot possibly be members of a truly moral community, and
therefore cannot possess rights” (Cohen, “The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical
Research, 866-867). The implementation of self-legislation assists a community to thrive but at
the same time, it limits the actions as well as choices of an individual. The argument is that since
animals cannot possess any morals, they are unable to devise laws and abide by them.
Though animals do have the necessary rights, it is our duty and obligation to treat them
correctly. As humans, it is our responsibility to show love and affection while meeting with
someone or coming across something, especially when they are in need. The dogs do not have
the right to feed themselves, walk and play but it is our obligation to make them do the above
things. As nurses have duties towards their patients, we as humans too have obligations towards
animals. It is the responsibility of humans to protect themselves as well as others. “To treat
animals humanely, however, is not to treat them as humans or as the holders of rights” (Cohen,
“The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research, 866). Through this quote, Cohen
makes it clear that we have a duty towards animals to treat them correctly, but at the same time,
it does not indicate that they have the right to be treated that way. According to our moral
judgment, we decide actions towards others. It is our moral responsibility to give respect to
animals, but less than humans. As humans possess more understanding of the outside world and
human relationships, they deserve to be admired as well as respected more than the animals.