Trial of Henry Kissinger

Trial of Henry Kissinger.
Amanda LakeyInternational Relations Book Review 18 April 2012 Kissinger’s Offenses The book the Trial of Henry Kissinger was written by Christopher Hitchens, a political opponent of Henry Kissinger. He is considered to be a pretty controversial figure because of his confrontational type of debate. He is considered a political observer, polecemist, and a self-proclaimed left -winged radical. He can be remembered for being a critic of Henry Kissinger, Mother Theresa and Bill Clinton.
The Trial of Henry Kissinger took a long time for the author to write because he collected a lot of incriminating evidence to help bring out the wrongdoings Kissinger has done during his political career. The book focuses on Hitchens’s examination of the evidence of Henry Kissinger’s supposed war crimes. Hitchens thinks that Kissinger deserves prosecution “for war crimes against humanity, and for offenses against common or customary or international law, including conspiracy to commit murder, kidnap, and torture” ( Hitchens 2).
To the author, Henry Kissinger is just a great liar who seems to have an amazing memory. According to Hitchens, Kissinger may be connected to war casualties in Vietnam, massacres in Bangladesh, planning murder in Chile when the US was not at war with them, involvement in the murder of the head of state of Cyprus, enabling a genocide in East Timor and kidnapping and murdering a journalist from Washington DC. The logic in which the author uses appears to be pretty persuasive to the reader. It is difficult to argue with one who uses such solid support in his opinions.

This book seems more like pure fact than just what the author thinks. If I were to have read thinking Henry Kissinger was innocent, afterwards I would start to think that he should be charged for the things he did. I think many Americans are not aware of the kinds of secrets acts that happen within the political system. This is an eye opener for many citizens; one should not get away with committing a crime, even if he has a lot of power. One of the main events the book focuses on is Kissinger’s involvement with the bombing of Cambodia.
The bombing of Cambodia would need approval from congress before it could occur. Unfortunately, Nixon and Kissinger never tried to get approval and went ahead with the plan anyways. They would try to hide these happenings from society. The bombing of Cambodia actually took place for about fourteen months, and “as a result of the expanded and intensified bombing campaigns, It has been estimated that as many as 350,000 civilians in Laos, and 600,000 in Cambodia, lost their lives” (Hitchens 35).
These events were leaked into the newspaper by American journalists, and Kissinger tried to find those responsible by wire-tapping phones. Another one of the events that took place is Kissinger’s involvement with the Vietnamese War. During the 1968 Paris peace talks, Kissinger came into the discussion and said that “he thinks any pullout next year would be a serious mistake… he favored a continued winding down and then a pull out… so it is too late to affect the election” (Hitchens 19). Kissinger was having secret meetings with the North Vietnamese, specifically the negotiator Le Duc Tho.
He was hiding these meetings from the rest of the governments officials who should have been involved. These peace talks ended up being futile, but they did help him gain more of a reputation with Nixon. Nixon was not happy with the way the Vietnamese War was turning out, so he decided to invade the neutral countries of Cambodia and Laos; this resulted in one million deaths in Cambodia and 350 thousand deaths in Laos. Even after everything that occurred, Henry Kissinger signed a peace treaty with Le Duck Tho in 1973. The two of then were then awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Henry Kissinger was one of the people who helped start the war, and he is also the person who helped finish it: “It took Henry Kissinger to ensure that a war of atrocity, which he had helped to prolong, should end just as furtively and ignominiously as it had began” (Hitchens 20). According to Hitchens, there is a Vietnam Veterans’ Memorial in which the names are listed by date, not alphabetically: “The first few names appear in 1954, and the last few in 1965” (20). A majority of the American population would not know that we went into Vietnam as early or as late as the memorial claims.
The author also talks about Kissinger’s role in Bangladesh. Kissinger supported Pakistan in the Liberation of Bangladesh in 1971. He wanted to show China how useful the United States can be when it comes to tactical alliance so they would side with America and oppose the USSR. Kissinger helped support the extermination of many Bengalis: “Kissinger had received some very bad and even mocking press for his handling of the Bangladesh crisis, and it had somewhat spoiled his supposedly finest hour in China” (Hitchens 50).
The Nixon Administration also was involved in a controversial military coup in Chile. Nixon had given the CIA permission to hold a military coup in order to prevent Salvador Allende’s inauguration. Allende was said to have ties with communist countries, which is something that caused the United State’s to have a rocky relationship with Chile. In 1973, the military coup caused the death of the Chilean leader. After this happened, Augusto Pinochet took control of Chile and began to bring a reign of terror to the country. Two cases were filed against Kissinger and dismissed during these times.
He was blamed for being involved in the military coup and disregarding those civilian’s and their family’s lives when he encouraged the Chilean repressive regime. The Trial of Henry Kissinger is one of the more recent books written in 2002 about the wrongdoings of Henry Kissinger, but other books were previously written before this time. One of the books is called the Price of Power written by Seymour M. Hursh in 1983. The other book is called Sideshow written by William Shawcross in 1979. There was obviously a great time p between these two books and the most current one, but they all seem to have the same idea.
They all seem to discuss Kissinger’s involvement with the Nixon Administration and try to charge him as a war criminal. The other books seem to focus on the topic of Cambodia the most, but the Trial of Henry Kissinger seems to discuss more circumstances for which Nixon should be charged for. The Slideshow seemed to think that Cambodia was one of the biggest crimes Kissinger and President Nixon committed: “Neither the United States nor its friends nor those who are caught helplessly in its embrace are well served when its leaders act, as Nixon and Kissinger acted, without care.
Cambodia was not a mistake; it was a crime” ( Shawcross 396). According to the book the Price of Power Nixon and Kissinger both appear to be in denial that any of the occurrences were their fault: “Kissinger and Nixon would repeatedly claim that the failures in South Vietnam and Cambodia were not their responsibility but the fault of Congress, which had cut off funding for the war” (Hursch 640). The book the Trial of Henry Kissinger is able to expand on these arguments more by giving solid evidence.
One of Nixon’s associates who worked alongside Kissinger claimed that if the plan for Cambodia did not work then Henry would get in trouble: “Kissinger was caught between the views of his staff- several of whom resigned in protest when the invasion began- and the need to please the President” ( Hitchens 28). Compared to the other books that has been written about Kissinger, I think the Trial of Henry Kissinger is the most helpful and informative, but because of the use of excerpts from government documents and memorandums, it can be a little difficult to read.
I also feel the author did not use enough counter arguments when he wrote the book. I feel like this is supposed to be an argumentative book in which the author tries to sway the reader to agree with his side. I think there is enough evidence to back up the authors claims, but the book would be even more believable had he tried to bring in opposing arguments and prove them wrong this way, there would be no arguing that Kissinger did do something wrong. All in all, I think this book is very useful for people to learn about Henry Kissinger.
To be honest, before coming into this class, I had never heard anything about him or the terrible things he was involved in. I think this book gives good background information in order to show the reader what kind of person Kissinger is and why he should be treated like a criminal. Because there was so much evidence from government documents used in the book, I have almost no arguments against the author’s claims. References Hitechens, Christopher. Trial of Henry Kissinger. Verso, New York. 2001. Print. Hursch, M Seymour. The Price of Power. 1983. Print. Shawcross, William. Sideshow. 1979. Print.

Trial of Henry Kissinger

Peter Singer’s Solution to World Poverty

Peter Singer’s Solution to World Poverty.
Peter Singer’s argument reveals little new to the reader who has ever been thinking about poverty and difference in life standards in different nations.
To the sophisticated reader, the main point of focus is the wording and how well the argument is presented, how effectively the author uses his persona, how effective his examples are, and how well he appeals to his target audience. The main weaknesses of his essay seem to be the example that is a little overdrawn, failure to account for some serious possible objections, and a somewhat problematic purpose.
To evaluate if this is true, let us see first what the purpose of the essay is. Singer aims to persuade his readers that they need to donate whatever money they have to spend beyond basic necessities to charity because not doing so means killing poor children around the world much like Dora in the Brazilian movie almost kills the street boy by pushing him into the hands of the organ peddlers.

This, as the title implies, would be the “Solution to World Poverty”. Basically, the author argues for a redistribution of global GDP via private donations from richer to poorer nations.
The purpose of the essay looks somewhat doubtful. One has to decide what Singer is in effect trying to do. As stated in the second paragraph, he seems to be persuading the audience to donate money to charity. Is he trying to end the world poverty? Or merely raise funds for charity organisations? The two things can be really different. No one is forbidden to think that the simplest way to end poverty is to redistribute funds through charity.
However, this does not address the root causes of poverty – social inequality, underdevelopment of some nation’s economies, political turmoil in weak democracies that blocks economic development, and so on.
This pushes one into thinking that effective efforts on combating poverty should direct funds towards projects like infrastructure improvement, sounder governance policies, and so on. Charity means giving bread to the poor all the time without teaching them how to make bread. It might be wiser to call on professionals having important skills to sacrifice a year or two of their professional careers in order to go to another nation and share their knowledge with people there.
For instance, a manager of the food processing factory would do better to go and help start a factory somewhere in Africa rather than keep sending them the greater part of his salary in those years. Singer, on the contrary, seems to see donations as the only viable means to end poverty. He does not take into account the efforts of people who work in development projects, and they may be contributing more to improving life quality of people in developing nations than they would if they stripped their life of TVs and new cars.
With his example involving Bob and his car Singer alienates the audience rather than entices it into donating. Bob’s situation is indeed different than that of the average American who is ready to give $200 to charity funds. If Bugatti is his own investment, then his whole future depends upon it.
He means it as an investment in his post-retirement future since “its rising market value means that he will always be able to sell it and live comfortably after retirement” (Singer 1999). A finance professional can debate the soundness of the decision to put all one’s retirement savings into one object as perishable as the car, especially driving it at the same time, but Bob seems determined to follow his strategy.
His car is his only investment, his way to secure income after retirement. If he loses his car, he will have to live on Social Security benefits that are far from secure now with the reform looming and all the talk of the future depletion of funds, and if he can count on them, they can really be too small to pay even for necessities.
The US is a rich nation, but the whole social setup encourages Americans to care for themselves on their own, including insurance schemes and retirement savings. For this reason, Bob may have not to give up luxuries – he deprives himself of necessities to save the child.
The picture of an old man losing his retirement funds and favourite car is far too gloomy to allure those who are eager to share a portion of their pie with starving children. Singer could have made his demands on fellow citizens more realistic and less frightening if he had chosen an example more suitable to his thesis – keeping necessities but letting luxuries go in order to provide necessities to others.
Another problem with Singer’s example is that Bob loses “His pride and joy” (Singer 1999). The car may be his only hobby, the pursuit in which he engages with great zest. This should alert the readers that following Singer’s strategy they will only be working day and night, using their high developed-nation income to help the poor in other countries. No more birthday parties that cost over $200, no more trips to exciting places, and how should an avid photographer feel buying a new expensive camera?
One would be forced to admit that all the progress of the world’s economy has only produced enough output so that all people can eat enough, and that’s it. Leonardo da Vinci probably didn’t have to paint his great works after all if nobody is going to travel to museums to see them. Museums and trips are definitely not on the list of necessities, and neither are CDs, books and computers that could store this information.
Singer would have a hard time trying to implement his solution in reality since it feels like elimination of luxuries has the potential to stop all the cultural progress in world and, even more importantly, deny people the right to enjoy something other than simple meals. Implementation of the solution would force one to produce an exact definition of what is luxury and what is not, and this is not as easy as it seems.
Thus, Singer’s example is repelling rather than attractive to the audience. It tells readers in which situation they might end up donating everything above $20,000 per household to charity – stranded in retirement, with hapless lives in which joys are no more than they were in the Ice Age.
Imagining that the targets are middle-class Americans, Singer is hardly ready to force them into paying for charity with these examples and his relentless claim to give up all beyond necessities. Intuitively, he would score higher with pictures of how charity actually works and how children are saved with the donations.
This is exactly what his paper is missing. Singer makes a concession concerning “uncertainties about whether aid will really reach the people who need it” admitting that “nobody who knows the world of overseas aid can doubt that such uncertainties exist” that is hardly encouraging for anybody willing to give a part of hard-earned money to such organisations (Singer 1999).
If $200 works after provisions are made for ‘uncertainties’, how much is really enough? $150? $100? And what exactly are the uncertainties? The first thing that comes to mind is corruption that is so prevalent in developing nations. Does Singer expect hard-working citizens to reduce themselves to a life consisting of bare necessities in order to feed immoral officials somewhere in Africa or Asia whose children are well off enough to pay their tuition at US universities?
This is an important objection, and Singer skips it by implying: “Don’t care how much they steal, just keep paying them.” Singer’s main emphasis is that people should part with the money because it is wrong for them to have it when so many children are starving. He does not show that this parting actually contributes to lives saved. This, however, is the basic assumption of utilitarian ethics – one has to do what works well for other people, not just what is right or moral to do.
Singer also fails to account for objections concerning the economic effects of his proposal. One can object that the high life standards of the Western society are promoted by the high motivation of the people and ingenious system that rewards performance.
Westerners are interested in the success of their companies thanks to profit-sharing plans, and they are aware that upgrading their education and learning new skills will result in higher salaries and better life standards. Human nature can be mean and unworthy, but so far financial reward has been an important stimulator. Singer is in fact suggesting that from now on everybody in the US should start living on $30,000 so that “a household making $100,000 could cut a yearly check for $70,000” (Singer 1999).
All making different input, getting about the same salaries with the rest redistributed for public good (but also involving corruption) – this is something the Soviet Union tried to do, and as is known, they failed on the economic front. It might take a couple of generations before the West lapses into a similar economic crisis for want of motivation and will no longer be able to support anybody financially.
Thus, Singer’s argument is failing on some points. First, his solution to world poverty is questionable and thus the purpose of the essay looks doubtful to those who support other solutions. Second, his example is not a good analogy since it differs from his stated thesis.
In addition, the example paints too gloomy a picture to be attractive to the audience. Besides, despite the professed utilitarianism of the essay, Singer does not go very deep into the results of the actions he advocates. He also fails to account for objection concerning the so-called ‘uncertainties’ of overseas aid and economic effects of his proposal.
Bibliography
Singer, Peter. “The Singer Solution to World Poverty.” The New York Times Sunday Magazine 5 September 1999: 60-63. 24 Oct. 05 <http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/19990905.htm>.
 

Peter Singer’s Solution to World Poverty

Billy Joel: Songwriter, Singer

Billy Joel: Songwriter, Singer.
Billy Joel is one of the greatest musicians of all time. He has many of the greatest songs and very interesting history. Billy Joel has played music since he was 4 years old. He has more than 3 1# hits in career of singing. Billy started his career local in new york then he went big. He is still performing today and nothing has changed since. Billy Joel was inducted to the rock hall of fame 19 years ago in 1999.
Billy was on May 9, 1949. He was born in the bronx and moved to Levittown off of Long island. His parents were Howard and Rosalind Joel. He had an older brother to named Alexander he was also in the music. He was pushed to study piano only at 4 years old. His father himself was an accomplished classical pianist. By the near time he was 16 he was better than other musicians. From then on his parents knew he was going to be an amazing musician.
Billy joel was 15 and he was just a freshman at Hicksville High School. He was in the band and chorus. When he was 16 he was already in 3 bands. His friends in each bad would have to pick him up and give him a ride each time they played. In the year 1967 he dropped out of high school not graduating at all. That made his parents very upset but they soon got over it. Billy joel never attended college. He pursued in singing music.

He tried making songs and he did. His first album was horrible. It was called Cold Spring Harbor. After that disappointing first album he flew to LA to stay under the radar and not get noticed. Then in 1972 he got a big gig working as a lounge pianist. Playing at The Executive Room is where his song “Piano Man,” was published. By late 1972, recording of Joel’s “Captain Jack” had been released on the East coast grabbing positive attention. In 1972 Billy joel Married Elizabeth Weber. Executives from Columbia Records gave Joel a second chance to become a rock star. With the momentum of a Top 20 single “Piano Man” to his name, Billy Joel began recording new songs and albums.
As the years passed, Joel’s style began to evolve showing his range from pop to the bluesy jazz stylings. In the 20 years of singing he he had 33 song in top 40. In 1982 Billy and Elizabeth had problems and got divorced.He then made the song Allentown. After that song came, Tell her about it and many more songs were released in the 80’s. In 1985 he was then married to model Christie Brinkley. In 1989, with big hit “We Didn’t Start the Fire.”Joel was presented with the Grammy Legend Award. Billy joel had received the kennedy honors award too.
Billy Joel had some of the greatest hits. He had more than 3 number 1 albums. Those songs were It’s still rock and roll to me, We didn’t start the fire, and Tell her about it. He had so many other songs like You may be right or you’re only human. People loved theses song and so do I. Some tickets to these songs cost more than 150$ I know and can tell how famous Billy Joel was. People then loved him to and that’s what made so famous. With the top hits hitting the charts that’s when the money came into the game. These were some of billy Joel’s Greatest hits.
Billy Joel won many awards throughout his career. Some awards were for songs and other Awards War for kind things he did. Some awards Billy Joel has received are Billy Joel was presented with a Grammy Legend award and Kennedy Honors Awards. He had so many other Awards that can’t be counted.every award Billy Joel was given Hebrew more and more famous. These were the Awards he received.
Billy Joel is one of the greatest musicians throughout time. He had so much history behind them that was interesting and people like that. Billy Joel is still performing today like in the Madison Square Garden or the Prudential Center. People still go to concerts and enjoy it. One thing I learned from learning about Billy Joel is starting young and practicing can bring you along way. These are the reasons why I chose Billy Joel.

Billy Joel: Songwriter, Singer

Arguments of Peter Singer

Arguments of Peter Singer.
Singer’s goal in the article “Famine, Affluence and Morality” is to get people to think differently about famine relief, charity, and morality. These are key issues that people need to be more aware of and act on them. People who are financially stable and well off should take more of an active role by giving more. They should feel obligated in helping those in need. There are many people suffering severely, those who can help are doing nothing. People should be more willing to give help rather than being obtuse & self-centered.
Singer argues it is wrong for a person to suffer from homelessness, hunger, or lack of medical attention. These needs are essential in life and without them can alimentally lead to one’s death. Another argument Singer gives is if a person is wealthy, they are more than capable to help others financially. They need to feel obligated to do so. Instead of a person spending money on extras and materialistic items for themselves, they should donate that money to the poor. The money should help with necessities for the poor and uplift them. On the same point he points out, one should not sacrifice if it would put them in harm’s way.
Singer’s concept of marginal utility is that one should give as much as possible to the unfortunate; it should never create a hardship to the giver. This would be doing more harm than good. When a person contributes to the poor, it should not financially affect their lifestyle by putting them in debt, homeless, or without food. People that are wealthy and well off should donate to the people that are unfortunate and suffering. It would be morally correct to help the less fortunate. An argument Singer makes is the distinction between a duty and charity.

He states, “That a duty is an action that is an obligation and charity is an action of something that is good to do but not obligated” (Singer, 1972, p. 232). An example he gives is if a child were drowning, it would be a person’s duty and obligation to help to save the child from drowning. Singer questions why this is any different from charity. Charity is “generosity and helpfulness especially toward the needy or suffering; also : aid given to those in need” (Dunignan, 2013). Singer feels that people that have the means and are able to help by giving money to the poor should feel obligated and it be there duty.
They should be obligated to do this because it is a person’s duty to help others from suffering. He does not understand why a person should feel they have a choice to prevent help suffering, it should be a duty that we have an obligation to do. An argument I would have with Singer is about being fair and right. I do not agree that all people need to be obligated to give away their hard-earned money to the poor. I would agree that people who are born into wealth or have received a large inheritance should be obligated to donate and not the people that have worked many years to get to that state.
People born into wealth or have received a large inheritance have been given a gift. Therefore, they should be inclined to share the gift by giving some of the money to the poor. (If money is a gift to a family or they were born into it, they should donate and give to the poor. They did not work for the money it was a gift, therefore a person should feel obligated as their duty to give to the poor. ) People that are well off because of many hours or having multiple jobs should not have to give their money away to the poor.
They have worked hard to receive it so they would not have to live paycheck to paycheck. I think these types of people have earned the right to live comfortably and do what they want with their money. They have put the time and work into making the money and it should be theirs to do what they want. “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” was written in response to an immediate humanitarian crisis. In November 1971, the confluence of war, poverty, and natural disaster had created nine million refugees in East Bengal, and Singer was appealing for immediate life-saving aid” (Jamiesom, 2005, p. 153). An Irish rock musician, Bob Geldof, immediately rushed into the studio with an all star line-up to record “Do they Know It’s Christmas? ” The record sold nearly 4 million copies in the United Kingdom alone, and was quickly followed by “We Are the World,” produced by Quincy Jones, in the United States.
Geldof went on the organized the LiveAid concert the following July, which was broadcast simultaneously from London and Philadelphia, and viewed by 1. 5 billion people around the world. The records and concert ultimately raised between $100 and $500 million for famine relief in Africa” (Jamiesom, 2005, p. 53-154). “These celebrity-driven, media-centered projects were valuable for a number of reasons. They created awareness of suffering in Africa, motivated people to act, and raised large sums of money”(Jamiesom, 2005, p. 154). Since 1972, the a lot more wealth people have stepped up into given aid to the poverty stricken. The article did raise awareness off the issue that needed to be addressed. In my opinion the wealthy have become more proactive in helping the poverty stricken. Leaving the middle class to do what they can when they can.
References
Duignan, B. (2013). Encyclopedia Britannica. http://dx.doi.org/http://www.britannica.com/EB checked/topic/1053194/Peter-Singer Jamiesom, D. (2005). Duties to the distance:Aid, assitance, and intervention in the developing world. The Journal of ethics, 9, 151-170. http://dx.doi.org/ProQuest doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10892-004-3324-9 Singer, P. (1972, Spring). Famine,affluence,and morality. Philosophy and public affairs, 1, 229-243. http://dx.doi.org/http://www.Jstor.org/stable/2265052

Arguments of Peter Singer

Compare Tom Regan, Carl Cohen and Peter Singer in Terms of Animal Rights

Compare Tom Regan, Carl Cohen and Peter Singer in Terms of Animal Rights.
Animal rights are one of the most controversial issues today. There has been endless debate about whether or not animals have rights. Philosophers attempt to come up with the moral conclusions by taking in account the many different standpoints and presenting their related arguments. In his essay “The case of animal rights”, Tom Regan, a professor of philosophy at North Carolina State University, defends his view that the center of our moral concern should not bring the suffering on animal as well as treating animals in a certain way.
In other words, we should treat animals as if they are our property. We should only use them to benefit us and hurting them is an action that is not morally justifiable. In addition, in his article “All Animal Are Equal”, Peter Singer, an Australian philosopher, has many points which show us that we have responsibilities to protect animal rights. Singer’s argument in his essay gives us a great support to the argument that Reagan trying to discuss in terms of morally equal.
In contrast, “The case of the use of animals in biomedical research” by Carl Cohen, a philosophy professor at University of Michigan Medical School, although he agrees with Regan’s idea in terms of moral rights as well as practices that essentially involve harming animals are morally unjustified, he strongly supports for the use of animal in medical research, and scientific experiments to avoid risking human lives. “The case of animal rights”, “all animal are equal” and “The case of the use of animals in biomedical research” introduce to us a new thinking about treating animals.

In his essay, Tom Regan points out theories are deficient in animals. The author discusses “Indirect duty view” which humans should recognize that animals should have the same rights as humans and they have the duty to uphold these rights. Besides that, Regan states in the “Contractarianism” that humans have rights and can protect their rights under the terms of the contract they signed. However, he indicated that animals have no rights because they cannot sign the contract. We humans should have direct duties to all animals.
Even the views including “Indirect duty view,” “Cruelty-kindness view,” and “Utilitarian view” fail to protect animal rights, he promotes the right view, which is the inherent value view. The author states that all individuals, including human and nonhuman animals, who are experienced the subject of life, should have equal inherent values and equal rights while being treated with respect. In addition, Peter Singer agrees with Regan that all animals are morally equal, at least with regard to their suffering. Peter Singer argues the point that animals and humans should be granted “equal consideration. Granting equal consideration means that humans and animals do not need to be treated exactly the same way, but that they need to be treated in an appropriate manner. Singer believes that suffering is “the vital characteristic that gives a being the right to equal consideration”. If all beings are able to suffer, animals should be treated with consideration equal to humans in most circumstances. Moreover, in his essay “All animals are equal,” Peter Singer points out the case for women’s rights and refers to similar arguments of animal’s rights.
Since animal’s rights were absurd, the argument for women’s rights must be mistaken. In contrast with both Regan and Singer’s views, Carl Cohen gives us strong evidences to demonstrate his standpoints why animals have no rights. He claims rights only exists within a community of moral agents who can make moral claims against each other and just human can exercise moral judgment. He thinks we must at least treat animals humanely, but this does not mean we need to treat them as if they have rights.
He also compared the differences between animals with brain damaged persons, senile or young in terms of the ability to make claim which is essential to being a person. That’s why these people are still part of our moral community, but animals are not. Moreover, he strongly supports to the increasing in the use of animals for medical experiments. He agrees that we actually need to increase the number experiments to avoid risking human lives because the increase in longevity , decrease in pain , the significant numbers of lives saved , the quality of human life all depends on such those research or experiments.

Compare Tom Regan, Carl Cohen and Peter Singer in Terms of Animal Rights