Speciesism and the argument from misfortune

Journal of Applied Philosophy 15 (2):155–163 (1998)
Abstract
Is there a morally relevant difference between a brain‐damaged human being and a nonhuman animal at the same cognitive and emotional level to justify, say, performing medical experiments on the animal but not the human being? Some hold that the misfortune of the human being allows us to distinguish between them. I consider the nature of misfortunate and argue that an appeal to misfortune fails to distinguish between the human being and the nonhuman animal when the treatment at issue is equally morally serious, since the source of the limitation taken advantage of by performing the medical experiment, whether misfortunate or natural vulnerability, is irrelevant
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/1468-5930.00083
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history
Request removal from index
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 28,126
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Speciesism as a Moral Heuristic.Stijn Bruers - 2013 - Philosophia 41 (2):489-501.
Human Dignity and the Creation of Human–Nonhuman Chimeras.César Palacios-González - 2015 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 18 (4):487-499.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2009-01-28

Total downloads

32 ( #161,180 of 2,171,816 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #326,702 of 2,171,816 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums