Compare Tom Regan, Carl Cohen and Peter Singer in Terms of Animal Rights

brute rights be one of the well-nigh controversial issues today. There has been endless debate nearly whether or non animals shed rights. Philosophers attempt to come up with the moral conclusions by winning in account the many different standpoints and presenting their related arguments. In his attempt The case of animal rights, Tom Regan, a prof of philosophy at North Carolina State University, defends his view that the center of our moral concern should not bring the deplorable on animal as well as breeding animals in a certain way.In other words, we should treat animals as if they are our property. We should only give them to benefit us and hurting them is an process that is not mor totallyy plainlyifiable. In addition, in his article All Animal Are Equal, Peter Singer, an Australian philosopher, has many points which show us that we have responsibilities to protect animal rights. Singers argument in his essay gives us a great support to the argument that Reagan ardu ous to discuss in terms of morally embody.In personal line of credit, The case of the use of animals in biomedical search by Carl Cohen, a philosophy professor at University of Michigan Medical School, although he agrees with Regans idea in terms of moral rights as well as practices that essentially view harming animals are morally unjustified, he strongly supports for the use of animal in medical research, and scientific experiments to avoid risking human lives. The case of animal rights, all animal are equal and The case of the use of animals in biomedical research introduce to us a new thinking about treating animals.In his essay, Tom Regan points out theories are deficient in animals. The write discusses In engineer duty view which humans should recognize that animals should have the kindred rights as humans and they have the duty to uphold these rights. Besides that, Regan states in the Contractarianism that humans have rights and can protect their rights under the terms of the weightlift they signed. However, he indicated that animals have no rights because they cannot sign the contract. We humans should have direct duties to all animals.Even the views including Indirect duty view, Cruelty-kindness view, and Utilitarian view stag to protect animal rights, he promotes the right view, which is the inherent value view. The pen states that all individuals, including human and nonhuman animals, who are experienced the subject of life, should have equal inherent values and equal rights while being tempered with respect. In addition, Peter Singer agrees with Regan that all animals are morally equal, at least with regard to their suffering. Peter Singer argues the point that animals and humans should be granted equal favor. Granting equal consideration means that humans and animals do not need to be treated exactly the same way, unless that they need to be treated in an appropriate manner. Singer believes that suffering is the vital characteristic tha t gives a being the right to equal consideration. If all beings are able to suffer, animals should be treated with consideration equal to humans in most circumstances. Moreover, in his essay All animals are equal, Peter Singer points out the case for womens rights and refers to similar arguments of animals rights.Since animals rights were absurd, the argument for womens rights must be mistaken. In contrast with both Regan and Singers views, Carl Cohen gives us strong evidences to demonstrate his standpoints wherefore animals have no rights. He claims rights only exists within a federation of moral agents who can hasten moral claims against each other and just human can exercise moral judgment. He thinks we must at least treat animals humanely, but this does not mean we need to treat them as if they have rights.He also compared the differences between animals with brain dishonored persons, senile or young in terms of the ability to make claim which is essential to being a person. Thats why these volume are still part of our moral community, but animals are not. Moreover, he strongly supports to the increasing in the use of animals for medical experiments. He agrees that we truly need to increase the number experiments to avoid risking human lives because the increase in longevity , decrease in pain , the significant numbers of lives salve , the quality of human life all depends on such those research or experiments.