Citations of work:

Carl Cohen (1986). The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research.

10 found
Order:
Are we missing citations?

PhilPapers citations & references are currently in beta testing. We expect to add many more in the future.

Meanwhile, you can use our bibliography tool to import references for this or another work.

Or you can directly add citations for the above work:

Search for work by author name and title
Add directly by record ID

  1. Fanciful Examples.Ian Stoner & Jason Swartwood - 2017 - Metaphilosophy 48 (3):325-344.
    This article defends the use of fanciful examples within the method of wide reflective equilibrium. First, it characterizes the general persuasive role of described cases within that method. Second, it suggests three criteria any example must meet in order to succeed in this persuasive role; fancifulness has little or nothing to do with whether an example is able to meet these criteria. Third, it discusses several general objections to fanciful examples and concludes that they are objections to the abuse of (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  2. The Core Argument for Veganism.Stijn Bruers - 2015 - Philosophia 43 (2):271-290.
    This article presents an argument for veganism, using a formal-axiomatic approach: a list of twenty axioms are explicitly stated. These axioms are all necessary conditions to derive the conclusion that veganism is a moral duty. The presented argument is a minimalist or core argument for veganism, because it is as parsimonious as possible, using the weakest conditions, the narrowest definitions, the most reliable empirical facts and the minimal assumptions necessary to reach the conclusion. If someone does not accept the conclusion, (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  3.  50
    A Carnivorous Rejoinder to Bruers and Erdös.Timothy Hsiao - 2015 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28 (6):1127-1138.
    In an earlier paper, I defended the moral permissibility of eating meat against sentience-based arguments for moral vegetarianism. The crux of my argument was that sentience is not an intrinsically morally salient property, and that animals lack moral status because they lack a root capacity for rational agency. Accordingly, it is morally permissible to consume meat even if doing so is not strictly necessary for our nutrition. This paper responds to critiques of my argument by Bruers :705–717, 2015) and Erdös. (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  4.  75
    Clarifying the Concept of Cruelty: What Makes Cruelty to Animals Cruel.Julia Tanner - 2015 - Heythrop Journal 56 (5):818-835.
  5.  73
    Contractarianism and Secondary Direct Moral Standing for Marginal Humans and Animals.Julia Tanner - 2013 - Res Publica 19 (2):1-16.
    It is commonly thought that neo-Hobbesian contractarianism cannot yield direct moral standing for marginal humans and animals. However, it has been argued that marginal humans and animals can have a form of direct moral standing under neo-Hobbesian contractarianism: secondary moral standing. I will argue that, even if such standing is direct, this account is unsatisfactory because it is counterintuitive and fragile.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  6.  20
    On the Need to Redress an Inadequacy in Animal Welfare Science: Toward an Internally Coherent Framework.Andrew Fenton - 2012 - Biology and Philosophy 27 (1):73-93.
    The time is ripe for a greater interrogation of assumptions and commitments underlying an emerging common ground on the ethics of animal research as well on the 3 R (replacement, refinement, reduction) approach that parallels, and perhaps even further shapes, it. Recurring pressures to re-evaluate the moral status of some animals in research comes as much from within the relevant sciences as without. It seems incredible, in the light of what we now know of such animals as chimpanzees, to deny (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  7.  83
    The Two Sources of Moral Standing.Justin Sytsma & Edouard Machery - 2012 - Review of Philosophy and Psychology 3 (3):303-324.
    There are two primary traditions in philosophical theorizing about moral standing—one emphasizing Experience (the capacity to feel pain and pleasure) and one emphasizing Agency (complexity of cognition and lifestyle). In this article we offer an explanation for this divide: Lay judgments about moral standing depend importantly on two independent cues (Experience and Agency), and the two philosophical traditions reflect this aspect of folk moral cognition. In support of this two-source hypothesis, we present the results of a series of new experiments (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  8.  80
    Experimentation on Humans and Nonhumans.Evelyn B. Pluhar - 2006 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 27 (4):333-355.
    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 (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  9.  91
    Can the Treatment of Animals Be Compared to the Holocaust?David Sztybel - 2006 - Ethics and the Environment 11 (1):97-132.
    : The treatment of animals and the Holocaust have been compared many times before, but never has a thoroughly detailed comparison been offered. A thirty-nine-point comparison can be constructed, whether or not one believes that animals are oppressed. The question of whether or not the comparison ought to be expressed merely brings into question whether animal liberationists have liberal-democratic rights to express themselves, which they surely do. Four objections are considered: Is the comparison offensive? Does the comparison trivialize what happened (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  10. Carl Cohen's 'Kind' Arguments for Animal Rights and Against Human Rights.Nathan Nobis - 2004 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 21 (1):43–59.
    Carl Cohen's arguments against animal rights are shown to be unsound. His strategy entails that animals have rights, that humans do not, the negations of those conclusions, and other false and inconsistent implications. His main premise seems to imply that one can fail all tests and assignments in a class and yet easily pass if one's peers are passing and that one can become a convicted criminal merely by setting foot in a prison. However, since his moral principles imply that (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations