ABSTRACT
Tom Regan’s answer as well as that of Paola Cavalieri is based on the concepts of rights to which a being is entitled. Regan develops the concept of “subject-of-a-life” as an expansion of Immanuel Kant’s focus on rational beings. Cavalieri uses the concept of “intentional beings” as an expansion of universal human rights theory. For Regan and Cavalieri animals have desires, intentions, feelings, and a psychological identity over time-there is “someone home” in an animal. Animals should be included in our moral community as beings with rights. Unlike Regan, Cavalieri grants the same value to the lives of all intentional beings. Carl Cohen rejects Regan’s argument. While Cohen does not deny that animals have rudimentary desires and interests, he does deny that having interests is relevant to having moral rights.
