Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Christina Aquino (THURS)
Although some benefits are extracted from animal experimentation, the moral obligation to animals should supersede this benefit. Animal experimentation often involves excruciatingly painful procedures, sometimes without the use of anesthetics. Animals’ intrinsic value and their ability to suffer, coupled with the availability of other options, makes these practices morally wrong. The Stanford Encyclopedia or Philosophy defines intrinsic value as “something that is valuable for its own sake as opposed to being valuable for the sake of something else.” Since (using G.E. Moore’s isolation test) animals would still possess value while living in a world by themselves, there are intrinsically valuable and therefore any harm done to them is morally wrong. Animals’ ability to suffer also grants them certain rights and creates an obligation to humans to refrain from inflicting pain on them, especially in when there are means to avoid that pain. There are a variety of alternatives available, such as cell cultures, computer modeling, statistical design, and The Murine Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA) that yield the same, if not better results than the experiments performed on animals.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
How would utilitarianism view this practice? Would the benefits of forgone pain of humans using these products outweigh the cost of harm done in experimenting on animals?
ReplyDeleteWhat traditional view would this belief be under?
ReplyDeleteScientists are continuously reprimanded for using animals in their studies. What are their reasons for still using animals if there is adequate technology that will reap the same results? If there are alternatives available what is there ethical platform for using live creatures?
ReplyDeleteWhat value would animals possess living in a world by themselves? How is value determined?
ReplyDeleteIf these other options exist, why are they not used more often? Also, humans have intrinsic value, yet things are still done that harm humans for the betterment of other humans. Since this mentality still exists in our society, why should one expect anything different to be the case for animals?
ReplyDeleteHow would you defend your thesis if we were to go back in time when technology wasn't as advanced and when cell cultures didn't (still don't) accurately display the same results as it would in animals? Would your thesis change? Is your defense only solid because of the sacrifices made to make these advances in science?
ReplyDeleteDiscussion section: THURS
ReplyDeleteIs animal experimentation more or less common in other cultures? If it varies across cultures, why is that so?
ReplyDeleteIf there are alternatives to animal testing available, why do you think they have not been utilized? Do you think it is for social/cultural reasons? Or for reasons associated with politics and business?
ReplyDeleteIn your first sentence you talked about the moral obligation to animals. What are our moral obligations to animals? And why do we have these obligations to them?
ReplyDeleteWhat if animals are bred specifically for testing and aren't removed from any environment, so their value/existence lies in their value to us? Does that change anything?
ReplyDeleteFor some experimentation on animals, it will benefit humans in different ways. Is there merit to the human kind by experimenting on animals? Is the utilitarian view acceptable when doing genetic experiments? Species of animals have already been altered genetically, such as canines and horses, so is this ethical to alter natural selection?
ReplyDeleteBehind the veil of ignorance would we decide to make animal experimentation legal? It seems that we would because do not apply to the social contract theory and humans could benefit from studying animals and how they work. How does one argue against this point?
ReplyDelete