The Animal Rights Debate
-
- 57,99 €
-
- 57,99 €
Description de l’éditeur
Do all animals have rights? Is it morally wrong to use mice or dogs in medical research, or rabbits and cows as food? How ought we resolve conflicts between the interests of humans and those of other animals? Philosophical inquiry is essential in addressing such questions; the answers given must have enormous practical importance. Here for the first time in the same volume, the animal rights debate is argued deeply and fully by the two most articulate and influential philosophers representing the opposing camps. Each makes his case in turn to the opposing case. The arguments meet head on: Are we humans morally justified in using animals as we do? A vexed and enduring controversy here receives its deepest and most eloquent exposition.
PUBLISHERS WEEKLY
Regan (The Case for Animal Rights) is well known as a rights advocate, while Cohen (Naked Racial Preference: The Case Against Affirmative Action) is considered one of Regan's most ardent detractors. Although the two philosophy professors agree on some issues within the debate they both like animals, and believe animals feel pain, have emotions and deserve to be treated humanely on most others, they are diametrically opposed. Cohen (who teaches at the University of Michigan) believes animals do not have rights, and seeing no alternative to animal medical experimentation, finds it fully justified. Regan (who teaches at North Carolina State University) seeks the abolition of all animal experimentation, the fur industry and all commercial animal farming. Cohen feels justified being a "speciesist," whereas Regan considers speciesism "a moral prejudice" and wrong. Differences also manifest in the authors' styles of collegiality. Cohen calls Regan "Tom" and "Regan" and a friend despite adopting a condescending tone toward his arguments and pronouncing him a "zealot," a "fanatic" and "profoundly mistaken." Regan calls his opponent "Professor Cohen" or "Cohen." He is "disappointed" in some of Cohen's beliefs, believes Cohen's brief is "poorly reasoned and researched" and lists the failures he perceives in Cohen's argument, but remains civil throughout, bolstering his credibility. Though this fascinating treatise will primarily appeal to students and animal rights proponents, it might reach a much wider audience.
