David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Applied Philosophy 12 (1):13-25 (1995)
Biomedical experimentation on animals is justified, researchers say, because of its enormous benefits to human being. Sure an imals die a nd suffer , but that is m orally insignificant since the benefits of research incalculably outweigh the evils. Although this utilitarian claim appears straightforward and uncontroversial, it is neither straightforw ard n ot uncontroversial. This defense of animal experimentation is like ly to succeed only by rejecting three widely held moral presumptions. W e identify those presumptions and explain their relevance to the justification of animal experimentation. We argue that even if non-human animals have con side rable less moral worth than humans, experimentation is justified only if its benefits are overwhelming. By building on arguments offered in earlier papers, we show that research ers c ann ot substantiate their claims of behalf of animal research. We conclude that there is currently no acceptable utilitarian defense of animal experimentation. Moreover, it is unlikely that they could be one. Since most apologists of animal experimentation rely on utilitarian justifications of their practice, it appears that biomedical experimentation on animals is not morally justified.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Robert Nozick (1974). Anarchy, State and Utopia. Basic Books.
Stephen R. L. Clark (1977/1984). The Moral Status of Animals. Oxford University Press.
Hugh LaFollette & Niall Shanks (1995). Two Models of Models in Biomedical Research. Philosophical Quarterly 45 (179):141-160.
Citations of this work BETA
Nathan Nobis (2004). Carl Cohen's 'Kind' Arguments for Animal Rights and Against Human Rights. Journal of Applied Philosophy 21 (1):43–59.
Similar books and articles
Nathan Nobis (2003). So Why Does Animal Experimentation Matter? Review of Ellen Frankel Paul and Jeffrey Paul, Eds. 2001. Why Animal Experimentation Matters: The Use of Animals in Medical Research. American Journal of Bioethics 3 (1):1 – 2.
Jac A. A. Swart (2004). The Wild Animal as a Research Animal. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 17 (2):181-197.
Andrew Knight (2011). The Costs and Benefits of Animal Experiments. Palgrave Macmillan.
Mark H. Bernstein (2004). Without a Tear: Our Tragic Relationship with Animals. University of Illinois Press.
Julia Tanner (2011). Rowlands, Rawlsian Justice and Animal Experimentation. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 14 (5):569-587.
Nathan Nobis (2007). A Rational Defense of Animal Experimentation. Journal of Philosophical Research 32 (Supplement):49-62.
Hugh LaFollette & Niall Shanks (1996). The Origin of Speciesism. Philosophy 71 (275):41-.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads62 ( #68,335 of 1,796,560 )
Recent downloads (6 months)7 ( #115,335 of 1,796,560 )
How can I increase my downloads?