Synopsis
Here, for the first time, the world's two leading authorities—Tom Regan, who argues for animal rights, and Carl Cohen, who argues against them—make their respective case before the public at large. The very terms of the debate will never be the same. This seminal moment in the history of the controversy over animal rights will influence the direction of this debate throughout the rest of the century.
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. (Sept.) Copyright 2001 Cahners Business Information.