Carl Cohen, “The Case Against Animal Rights”

I. Cohen’s Aim: to rebut two arguments against using animals as research subjects in medical experiments.

II. Against the notion that animal experimentation violates animals' rights.

What is a right? 

"A right . . . is a claim, or potential claim, that one party may exercise against another" (865).

"To comprehend any genuine right fully . . . we must know who holds the right, against whom it is held, and to what it is a right." (865)

Moral Rights vs. Legal Rights

"[Rights] are in every case claims, or potential claims, within a community of moral agents. Rights arise, and can be intelligibly defended, only among beings who actually do, or can, make moral claims against one another." (865)

Structure of Cohen's Argument:

Only members of species with capacity C have rights.
Non-human animal species do not have capacity C.
Therefore, members of non-human animal species do not have rights. 

(If members of non-human animal species do not have rights, then animal experimentation obviously cannot violate their rights.) 

Cohen's Argument:

Only members of species with the capacity to make moral claims have rights. But having the capacity to make moral claims requires having autonomy. Non-human animal species lack autonomy. Therefore, members of non-human animal species do not have rights. (Based on 866.)      

Objection to Argument Cohen considers:

His argument implies that many humans (e.g., the senile) do not have rights. (866)

III. Against the notion that animal experimentation wrongly causes animals avoidable suffering. 

Rejection of the following contention: our causing animals avoidable suffering is wrong because it involves “speciesism.” (867)

Rejection of the following contention: causing animals avoidable suffering is wrong because it fails to promote the general happiness. (868)

IV. Which Premise(s) in Singer's Argument Would Cohen Reject?