Res Publica 13 (3):293-318 (2007)
This paper examines whether non-human animals have a moral right not to be experimented upon. It adopts a Razian conception of rights, whereby an individual possesses a right if an interest of that individual is sufficient to impose a duty on another. To ascertain whether animals have a right not to be experimented on, three interests are examined which might found such a right: the interest in not suffering, the interest in staying alive, and the interest in being free. It is argued that while the first two of these interests are sufficient to ground animal rights against being killed and made to suffer by experiments, the interest in freedom does not ground a general animal right not to be used in experimentation.
|Keywords||animals autonomy continued life experiments freedom interests prudential value rights sentience suffering well-being|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Saving the Polar Bear, Saving the World: Can the Capabilities Approach Do Justice to Humans, Animals and Ecosystems? [REVIEW]Elizabeth Cripps - 2010 - Res Publica 16 (1):1-22.
Similar books and articles
Animal Ethics and Interest Conflicts.Elisa Aaltola - 2005 - Ethics and the Environment 10 (1):19-48.
Animal Century: A Celebration of Changing Attitudes to Animals.Mark Gold - 1998 - J. Carpenter.
Animal Rights: A Non‐Consequentialist Approach.Uriah Kriegel - 2013 - In K. Petrus & M. Wild (eds.), Animal Minds and Animal Ethics. Transcript.
Animal Rights: Autonomy and Redundancy. [REVIEW]David Sztybel - 2001 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 14 (3):259-273.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads135 ( #33,917 of 2,151,996 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #185,176 of 2,151,996 )
How can I increase my downloads?
There are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.