|
In Animal Liberation, Peter Singer argues that animals feel pain
even though they do not have language governed by rules of syntax, so
animals have rights. In contrast, Carl Cohen, The Case for the Use of
Animal in Biomedical Research, asserts that animals lack moral capacity
and animals therefore have no rights. Animals have no rights as
Cohen's statement although animals have been helpful to humans for
over centuries, supplying labors as well as foods. In my perspective,
animals do not have rights as equal as humans do, in considering the
quality of their language, the usefulness, and the effectiveness of
experiments.
Language is one of the most important elements to separate humans
from animals. As Cohen's argument, language enables humans to exercise
or respond to moral claims but not animals (p. 251). Therefore,
language entitles humans to experiment on animals. Of course, nonhumans
such as animals also communicate through sounds or body movements but
they do not use developed language to communicate. In other words,
animals are able to communicate between same species and sometimes with
other species. However, animals are expressing no more than their basic
instinct and this is what draws a line between humans and animals.
Meanwhile, the language that humans use based on rules of syntax is
totally different because it enables humans to express moral capacity
and, consequently, claim rights. This is why humans have rights but not
animals.
As increasing to use animals as experimenting on animals, there also
gives rise misunderstanding about using of them. Animals have played
significant role as being used in experiments. Enormous advancements
made in treating many diseases over the past couple decades are due to
experimentation on animals. Cohen also mentions the part how much
animals have attributed to benefit humans. The misunderstanding about
experimenting on animals is usually distorted by animal rights
activists and media. They do not look great benefits achieved through
experiments for humans and animals.
The effectiveness of using animals for test is much higher than
other substitute. Realistically, there is no other good substitution
right now instead of experimenting on animals. Animals have very
similar organic system as humans do, so it is the primary reason that
animals are used as source of research. It is difficult to test any
kind of medicine to plants to get accurate feedback that is telling the
medicine is safe enough to use to humans. This is the reason why
animals have been used mainly for research.
In conclusion, I think Cohen holds the more tenable view than
Singer, in exploring animal language, necessity and effectiveness of
animal use in the research. Singer assists to explain that animals also
feel pains regardless of language but he did not suggest any
substitutes. On the other hand, Cohen presents realistic proposal such
as trying to find substitute for and reduce experiments on animals,
illustrating why animals do not have rights.
|
|
|
(0 vote)