What is the moral status of non-human animals? Do they have rights? This question, and all of it's complex entities, stands at the forefront among the most debated and philosophically dissected issues. To prove whether or not animals have rights without a doubt would forever change our treatment and use of animals as well as the world in which we live. The consequences of a definitive answer to the animal rights debate are numerous and profound which is why the issue continues to be argued for or against with the harshest of scrutiny. It is the goal of this essay to present and analyze justifiable argument for and against the concept of animal rights. Tom Regan is widely regarded as one of the greatest assets for the defense of animal rights. Carl Cohen denies the existence of said right. While they stand on opposite poles of this issue, they both agree that "What we conclude about animal rights will have consequences for the food we eat and the clothes we wear, and it will have direct bearing on the kinds of science we think morally justifiable."(viii)
Carl Cohen, a professor of philosophy at the University of Michigan, determinately believes that animals do not have rights. More specifically, to Cohen, they cannot have rights. This by no means suggests Cohen is an animal hater. He values the concept of animal welfare and the humane treatment of animals though he draws a distinct line between welfare and rights. "Animals do not have rights. This is not to say that we may do whatever we want to animals or that everything commonly done by humans to animals is justifiable...we humans have a universal obligation to act humanely, and this means that we must refrain from treating animals in ways that cause them unnecessary distre ...