Journal of Applied Philosophy 21 (1):43–59 (2004)
|Abstract||Carl Cohen's arguments against animal rights are shown to be unsound. His strategy entails that animals have rights, that humans do not, the negations of those conclusions, and other false and inconsistent implications. His main premise seems to imply that one can fail all tests and assignments in a class and yet easily pass if one's peers are passing and that one can become a convicted criminal merely by setting foot in a prison. However, since his moral principles imply that nearly all exploitive uses of animals are wrong anyway, foes of animal rights are advised to seek philosophical consolations elsewhere. I note that some other philosopher's arguments are subject to similar objections.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
David Sztybel (2001). Animal Rights: Autonomy and Redundancy. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 14 (3):259-273.
Paul Waldau (2010). Animal Rights: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford University Press.
H. J. McCloskey (1979). Moral Rights and Animals. Inquiry 22 (1-4):23 – 54.
Hugh LaFollette & Niall Shanks (1996). The Origin of Speciesism. Philosophy 71 (275):41-.
Tom Regan (1997). The Rights of Humans and Other Animals. Ethics and Behavior 7 (2):103 – 111.
David DeGrazia (2002). Animal Rights: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
Marna A. Owen (2009). Animal Rights: Noble Cause or Needless Effort? Twenty-First Century Books.
Mark Rowlands (2009). Animal Rights: Moral Theory and Practice. Palgrave Macmillan.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads78 ( #12,479 of 722,786 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,541 of 722,786 )
How can I increase my downloads?