David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 27 (4):333-355 (2006)
In this article, I argue that it is wrong to conduct any experiment on a nonhuman which we would regard as immoral were it to be conducted on a human, because such experimentation violates the basic moral rights of sentient beings. After distinguishing the rights approach from the utilitarian approach, I delineate basic concepts. I then raise the classic “argument from marginal cases” against those who support experimentation on nonhumans but not on humans. After next replying to six important objections against that argument, I contend that moral agents are logically required to accord basic moral rights to every sentient being. I conclude by providing criteria for distinguishing ethical from unethical experimentation.
|Keywords||argument from marginal cases experimentation homocentrism moral agents moral rights sentient beings speciesism utilitarianism|
|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
Peter Singer (ed.) (1990). Animal Liberation. Avon Books.
Tom Regan (2009). The Case for Animal Rights. In Steven M. Cahn (ed.), Noûs. Oxford University Press 425-434.
Alan Gewirth (1978). Reason and Morality. University of Chicago Press.
F. B. M. de Waal (1996). Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals. Harvard University Press.
S. F. Sapontzis (1987). Morals, Reason, and Animals. Temple University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
Andrew Fenton (2012). On the Need to Redress an Inadequacy in Animal Welfare Science: Toward an Internally Coherent Framework. Biology and Philosophy 27 (1):73-93.
Similar books and articles
LeRoy Walters (1974). Ethical Issues in Experimentation on the Human Fetus. Journal of Religious Ethics 2 (1):33 - 54.
Jane Maienschein (1986). Arguments for Experimentation in Biology. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1986:180 - 195.
J. Robert Loftis (2005). Germ-Line Enhancement of Humans and Nonhumans. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 15 (1):57-76.
Evelyn B. Pluhar (1993). On Vegetarianism, Morality, and Science: A Counter Reply. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6 (2):185-213.
Steven G. Smith (1993). Sympathy, Scruple, and Piety: The Moral and Religious Valuation of Nonhumans. Journal of Religious Ethics 21 (2):319 - 342.
Lisa Bortolotti (2006). Moral Rights and Human Culture. Ethical Perspectives 13 (4):603-620.
Evelyn Pluhar (1992). Who Can Be Morally Obligated to Be a Vegetarian? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 5 (2):189-215.
Hugh LaFollette & Niall Shanks (1995). Util-Izing Animals. Journal of Applied Philosophy 12 (1):13-25.
Tom Regan (1988). The Question is Not, "Can They Talk?". Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 13 (2):213-221.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads53 ( #79,509 of 1,796,306 )
Recent downloads (6 months)10 ( #74,365 of 1,796,306 )
How can I increase my downloads?