Question

Animal Rights Short Answer Exam

1. Considering Cohen’s position, what would he say about the case below—what conclusion would he arrive at? Be specific (that is, make it obvious that you understand his position).

Suppose we depleted all of Earth’s resources (a result of human activities) and in order to keep human life alive, we need to colonize another habitable planet. Lucky for us, there is a galaxy out there with a planet, we’ll call it Perth, much like Earth. It has all the life-sustaining resources for humans to live full lives, the way they do on Earth. Perth, however, is already inhabited by lots of different life forms, the most advanced being the Pumans. The Pumans are like humans in all ways except one: they are constituted in such a way that they never do harm—However, it is not a result of having made a real moral choice (they do not possess Kant’s moral free will). They cannot help but to act this way; this is the way they are built (perhaps due to evolution—those members who inflicted harm didn’t survive). As a result, Puman society is peaceful in every way. A very desirable place to live.

Without the types of resources Perth provides, the human race will die off. Granted, it would be prudent to try to appeal to the Puman's good nature and work with them, but the resources can support only one race.

Answer 1

The study of the case mentioned here, tells us that the human beings need to take refuge on the planet Perth to ensure their survival or else their race will be wiped out. The planet Perth is rich with all the resources which guarantee life-support. But, Perth already has many live inhabitants.The unique inhabitants called Pumans are similar to humans in all the aspects but they do not possess one trait of human being that is inflicting violence on others, when the need arises. This gentle nature of the Pumans is the result of their genetic make-up and not because of any preference by them to be non-violent. The Pumans are designed in this way and they have not made any voluntary choice to behave passively and peacefully. They are not the followers of Kant, who opined that some actions like killing, stealing and speaking untruth were forbidden even if they had the capacity to produce happiness. The human beings can request the Pumans to allow them to reside on planet Perth along with them. The Pumans due to their good nature may allow the human beings to coexist with them but, the issue is that planet Perth's resources can support only one race.

Carl Cohen is a Philosopher who strongly argues that animals do not have any rights. He states that rights come into being and are protected by human beings. Only human beings have the ability to make choices which are ethical. He opines that animals do not have rights and as such, human beings cannot defy the rights of animals as there are no rights in existence to violate. Human beings only have certain responsibilities towards animals like caring, providing food or veterinary care. But none of this responsibilities convert into rights.

So, considering Cohen's position and ideology, he would definitely want the human beings to encroach upon the planet Perth because Cohen feels that human beings have a right to live and should take all the necessary steps to safeguard their lives. Cohen will opine that as Perth can support only one race, human beings should get the priority to live there because the welfare of human beings is utmost important. Therefore, he would advise the human beings who seek refuge on the planet Perth, to first fulfill the responsibility of requesting the Pumans to go away from the planet. Although, the Pumans resemble humans, they are not human beings and therefore, for the greater good of mankind Cohen would advise the human beings to inhabit the planet Perth and expel the Pumans from there. As according to Cohen, animals do not have ethical acumen and therefore the Pumans will neither rebel nor fight for their rights and as they cannot choose to go away from the planet, the decision has to be taken by the human beings.