Ethical Differences Between Regan And Hogan

Animal Rights
Animal rights are a common altercation when looked at from a medical standpoint and from an equality view. Two authors construct essays discussing the opposing views of animal rights. The first author, Cohen, approaches the need of animal rights from a medical standpoint, while Regan addresses the morality of zoos and the equality of animals. Regan and Cohen differentiate animal rights by addressing the value and equality of animals in regards to animals testing and animal captivity. In this essay, Cohen and Regan’s arguments will both be addressed along with differences and similarities between the two arguments. According to Regan, there is no difference between humans and animals. Therefore, animals should be treated, as they are equal because animals have a presence in the world like humans. Regan explains animal rights through two perspectives; utilitarian, which he rejects, and the
Although Cohen still believes that animals ought to be treated well, the main difference is they do not have rights. Cohan believes that animals are unable to have the rights humans do because they are unable to bear rights due to lack of moral understanding. Human rights are not applied to animals because they are unable to tell the difference between right and wrong and therefore lack moral understanding. Testing on animals requires that we still act humanly, based on morality, an act that animals do not possess. Regan protests that like us, they have a psychological presence in the world and are aware of this presence. Regan believes that animals do have rights based on the fundamental ways they are like humans (i.e hunting, eating, etc.). Animals moral status is not to be degraded or reduced based on our interests, and animals deserve the equality and respect that humans receive based on Regan’s