Qty:1
  • List Price: $37.95
  • Save: $3.00 (8%)
FREE Shipping on orders over $35.
In Stock.
Ships from and sold by Amazon.com.
Gift-wrap available.
The Animal Rights Debate has been added to your Cart
FREE Shipping on orders over $35.
Used: Very Good | Details
Sold by Keeponbookin
Condition: Used: Very Good
Comment: Eligible for FREE Super Saving Shipping! Fast Amazon shipping plus a hassle free return policy mean your satisfaction is guaranteed! Tracking number provided with every order. Pages are bright and clean with no notes, underlining or highlighting. Slight wear on edges and covers; otherwise item is in very good condition.
Access codes and supplements are not guaranteed with used items.
Have one to sell? Sell on Amazon
Flip to back Flip to front
Listen Playing... Paused   You're listening to a sample of the Audible audio edition.
Learn more
See this image

The Animal Rights Debate Paperback – May 1, 2001

ISBN-13: 978-0847696635 ISBN-10: 0847696634 Edition: 1st

Buy New
Price: $34.95
25 New from $16.87 28 Used from $3.23
Amazon Price New from Used from
Hardcover
"Please retry"
$100.00
Paperback
"Please retry"
$34.95
$16.87 $3.23
Unknown Binding
"Please retry"
Free%20Two-Day%20Shipping%20for%20College%20Students%20with%20Amazon%20Student

$34.95 FREE Shipping on orders over $35. In Stock. Ships from and sold by Amazon.com. Gift-wrap available.

Frequently Bought Together

The Animal Rights Debate + Animal Liberation: The Definitive Classic of the Animal Movement
Price for both: $46.88

Buy the selected items together

NO_CONTENT_IN_FEATURE

Best Books of the Month
Best Books of the Month
Want to know our Editors' picks for the best books of the month? Browse Best Books of the Month, featuring our favorite new books in more than a dozen categories.

Product Details

  • Series: Point/Counterpoint: Philosophers Debate Contemporary Issues
  • Paperback: 336 pages
  • Publisher: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers; 1 edition (May 2001)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 0847696634
  • ISBN-13: 978-0847696635
  • Product Dimensions: 9.1 x 5.9 x 0.8 inches
  • Shipping Weight: 1 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
  • Average Customer Review: 4.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (3 customer reviews)
  • Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,321,466 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

Regan (The Case for Animal Rights) is well known as a rights advocate, while Cohen (Naked Racial Preference: The Case Against Affirmative Action) is considered one of Regan's most ardent detractors. Although the two philosophy professors agree on some issues within the debate they both like animals, and believe animals feel pain, have emotions and deserve to be treated humanely on most others, they are diametrically opposed. Cohen (who teaches at the University of Michigan) believes animals do not have rights, and seeing no alternative to animal medical experimentation, finds it fully justified. Regan (who teaches at North Carolina State University) seeks the abolition of all animal experimentation, the fur industry and all commercial animal farming. Cohen feels justified being a "speciesist," whereas Regan considers speciesism "a moral prejudice" and wrong. Differences also manifest in the authors' styles of collegiality. Cohen calls Regan "Tom" and "Regan" and a friend despite adopting a condescending tone toward his arguments and pronouncing him a "zealot," a "fanatic" and "profoundly mistaken." Regan calls his opponent "Professor Cohen" or "Cohen." He is "disappointed" in some of Cohen's beliefs, believes Cohen's brief is "poorly reasoned and researched" and lists the failures he perceives in Cohen's argument, but remains civil throughout, bolstering his credibility. Though this fascinating treatise will primarily appeal to students and animal rights proponents, it might reach a much wider audience.

Copyright 2001 Cahners Business Information, Inc.

Review

A fascinating treatise . . . [that] appeals primarily to students and animal rights proponents. (Publishers Weekly)

The volume should be in the library of any school where philosophy is taught or animal research conducted, that is, in nearly every academic library. (Choice Magazine)

Tom Regan is without doubt the world's greatest defender of the rights of animals. Carl Cohen is one of Regan's notable critics. Here, between the pages of a single volume, are important new contributions from each of these authors. The resulting text isrequired reading for everyone interested in this critical issue.... (Gary Comstock)

The book would make an ideal main text in a seminar on animals, ethics, and science for advanced undergraduate or graduate students in philosophy, biological sciences, experimental psychology, or the health-professions, including veterinary sciences. (The Journal Of Value Inquiry)

The book is enormously entertaining, and both writers succeed in making it clear and simple. (Radical Philosophy)

A fascinating treatise . . . [that] appeals primarily to students and animal rights proponents..... (Publishers Weekly)

A tour de force of brilliant debate. No other 'seeing the issues from both sides' book comes close to this one in the sustained power of argumentation and in its thorough canvassing of the issues surrounding everything that might be said about the ethical treatment of animals. Quite simply, the best book of its kind. (Sidney Gendin)

Tom Regan is without doubt the world's greatest defender of the rights of animals. Carl Cohen is one of Regan's notable critics. Here, between the pages of a single volume, are important new contributions from each of these authors. The resulting text is required reading for everyone interested in this critical issue. (Gary Comstock)

The two [Cohen and Regan] argue vigorously and write clearly, producing an engaging, accessible book. (Ethics)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

4.0 out of 5 stars
Share your thoughts with other customers

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

24 of 36 people found the following review helpful By Rick Bogle on August 10, 2001
Format: Paperback
I began reading The Animal Rights Debate with the expectation that debate between two philosophy professors might truly illuminate the issues at hand in the continuing, in fact, increasing, discussion regarding the relationship between humans and other animals.
Tom Regan is well known for his sharp and careful analysis, and I expected anyone paired with him in a book of this nature to be similarly prepared for the discussion. Mr. Cohen did write as if he knew what he was writing about, but unfortunately for the reader, he did not.
From the first pages of Mr. Cohen's article, errors of fact are rife. He says, "The Department of Agriculture recently estimated the number of animals used in medical and pharmaceutical research to be about 1.6 million, of which the vast majority, approximately 90%, were rats, mice, and other rodents." (p 14)
In fact, mice, rats, and birds are specifically excluded from the statistics Mr. Cohen cites; the Department of Agriculture (USDA) figures do not include mice, rats, or birds because the Animal Welfare Act excludes these animals from coverage under the act. This is very well known by all observers. Industry estimates suggest that at least 30 million mice and rats are used annually.
He also claims that "every" lab using animals is subject to "frequent" inspection by the Department of Agriculture to insure the humane use of the animals in those labs. The USDA, in fact, estimates that at least 2000 labs in the US are not inspected because they use only mice, rats, or birds, and these animals are not counted as animals under U.S. law. Humane use is not at issue even during the inspections of the labs that do fall within the purview of the agency.
I was shocked by Mr.
Read more ›
2 Comments Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
13 of 20 people found the following review helpful By Nathan Nobis on August 10, 2001
Format: Paperback
Regan's contribution is impressive. Regan's section is where to begin. He argues that whether a being has rights (and which rights it has) depends on its psychological capacities, not its biological species per se. Since babies and mentally challenged humans (who aren't rational or autonomous) have the right not to be eaten, worn, experimented on, chased down and shot and their heads hung on the wall, etc., so do non-human animals, since their psychologies are of comparable, if not often greater, levels. QED.
Objections to Regan concern his general theory of rights, NOT whether animals have them, if anyone does (many plausible moralities deny "rights" in the sense Regan defends).
According to Cohen, animals do not have rights because they animals cannot engage in moral deliberation, act on principles, and be moral agents.
Many humans cannot cannot engage in moral deliberation, act on principles, and be moral agents and hvae the capacities that Cohen seems to think are necessary for having rights. But, most of us think it would be wrong to experiment on them and kill them, even if doing so would greatly advance our interests. Cohen agrees. But since some humans lack these capacities yet have rights, this shows that these capacities are not necessary for rights. Cohen's denying rights to animals is arbitrary, a case of not treating beings with equal psychological capacities as equals: it is discrimination on the basis of species alone.
Cohen replies that objections like this "miss the point badly" because human infants, the senile, and the severely mentally disabled "have rights because they are human." He says that, "The critical distinction is one of kind.
Read more ›
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
6 of 13 people found the following review helpful By David K. Johnson on December 31, 2003
Format: Paperback
Cohen's sophomoric replies to Regan's claims for extending basic moral consideration to nonhuman animals makes a mockery of this debate (a surprising deficit, given Cohen's training and reputation as a logician). Regan, in contrast, is scholarly and thoughtful, though one suspects that his case for "animal rights" (and consequent absolutism) continues to faulter against the foundational assumption of the "equal inherent value of all subjects of a life" and concommitant rejection of all extrinsic (relational) ethical considerations. See M. Silliman, *Sentience and Sensibility,* for an value-incrementalist alternative to Regan's antiperfectionist unicriterialism.
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again

What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?