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

Animal rights are one of the most polemical issues today. There has been endless debate about whether or not animals nurture rights. Philosophers attempt to come up with the honourable conclusions by taking in account the many different standpoints and presenting their related arguments. In his essay The case of animal rights, Tom Regan, a professor of philosophy at North Carolina State University, defends his positioning that the center of our moral concern should not bring the suffering on animal as tumefy as treating animals in a certain way.In other words, we should treat animals as if they are our property. We should barely expenditure them to benefit us and hurting them is an action that is not morall(a)y justifiable. In addition, in his phrase All Animal Are Equal, Peter vocaliser, an Australian philosopher, has many points which show us that we harbor responsibilities to protect animal rights. Singers argument in his essay gives us a nifty support to the argument that Reagan trying to discuss in terms of morally equal.In contrast, The case of the physical exertion of animals in bio aesculapian research by Carl Cohen, a philosophy professor at University of Michigan health check School, although he agrees with Regans idea in terms of moral rights as well as practices that basically involve harming animals are morally unjustified, he strongly supports for the use of animal in medical research, and scientific experiments to avoid risking gracious 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 author discusses Indirect duty moot which existence should recognize that animals should have the same 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 th eir rights under the terms of the contract 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 fail to protect animal rights, he promotes the right view, which is the inherent value view. The author states that all individuals, including human and nonhuman animals, who are experienced the subject of life, should have equal inherent values and equal rights piece of music being treated 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 experimental condition. Granting equal amity means that humans and animals do not need to be treated exactly the same way, save that they need to be treated in an appropriate manner. Singer believes that suffering is the vital characteristic that 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 why animals have no rights. He claims rights only exists within a community of moral agents who can make 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 damaged persons, senile or young in terms of the world power to make claim which is essential to being a person. Thats why these people are serene 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 actually need to increase the number experiments to avoid risking human lives because the increase in higher rank , decrease in pain , the significant numbers of lives saved , the quality of human life all depends on such those research or experiments.