Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 24 (4):420-430 (2015)
AbstractIn this paper, we present three necessary conditions for morally responsible animal research that we believe people on both sides of this debate can accept. Specifically, we argue that, even if human beings have higher moral status than nonhuman animals, animal research is morally permissible only if it satisfies (a) an expectation of sufficient net benefit, (b) a worthwhile-life condition, and (c) a no unnecessary-harm/qualified-basic-needs condition. We then claim that, whether or not these necessary conditions are jointly sufficient conditions of justified animal research, they are relatively demanding with the consequence that many animal experiments may fail to satisfy them.
Similar books and articles
Incompatibilism and the transfer of non-responsibility.Justin Capes - 2016 - Philosophical Studies 173 (6):1477-1495.
Animal Research Ethics in Africa: Is Tanzania Making Progress?Misago Seth & Fredy Saguti - 2012 - Developing World Bioethics 12 (3):158-162.
How to be responsible for something without causing it.Carolina Sartorio - 2004 - Philosophical Perspectives 18 (1):315–336.
Animal Research Ethics in Africa: Is Tanzania Making Progress?Fredy Saguti Misago Seth - 2013 - Developing World Bioethics 13 (3):158-162.
A compassionate autonomy alternative to speciesism.Constance K. Perry - 2001 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 22 (3):237-246.
Doing the best one can and the principle of alternative possibilities.Ishtiyaque Haji - 1994 - Southwest Philosophy Review 10 (2):113-127.
The regulation of animal research and the emergence of animal ethics: A conceptual history. [REVIEW]Bernard E. Rollin - 2006 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 27 (4):285-304.
Moral responsibility for actions: epistemic and freedom conditions.Alfred Mele - 2010 - Philosophical Explorations 13 (2):101-111.
A problem for guidance control.Patrick Todd & Neal A. Tognazzini - 2008 - Philosophical Quarterly 58 (233):685-692.
Being Morally Responsible for an Action Versus Acting Responsibly or Irresponsibly.Susan Leigh Anderson - 1995 - Journal of Philosophical Research 20:451-462.
Responsibility, manipulation and ownership: Reflections on the Fischer/Ravizza program.Neal Judisch - 2005 - Philosophical Explorations 8 (2):115-130.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Animal Research that Respects Animal Rights: Extending Requirements for Research with Humans to Animals.Angela K. Martin - 2022 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 31 (1):59-72.
Role of Moral Values in Evaluation of the Use of Nonhuman Animals in Research.Maria Botero & Donna Desforges - 2020 - Society and Animals 30 (4):386-403.
Ethical issues when modelling brain disorders innon-human primates.Carolyn P. Neuhaus - 2018 - Journal of Medical Ethics 44 (5):323-327.
References found in this work
The case for animal rights.Tom Regan - 2009 - In Steven M. Cahn (ed.), Noûs. Oxford University Press. pp. 425-434.
The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation.Aysha Akhtar - 2015 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 24 (4):407-419.
Lives in the Balance: Utilitarianism and Animal Research.Robert Bass - 2012 - In Jeremy Garrett (ed.), The Ethics of Animal Research: Exploring the Controversy. MIT Press.