DOCSLIB.ORG

Ethics & Behavior Opposing Views on Animal Experimentation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ethics & Behavior Opposing Views on Animal Experimentation This article was downloaded by: [Vienna University Library] On: 25 February 2011 Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 931547535] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37- 41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Ethics & Behavior Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t782890670 Opposing Views on Animal Experimentation: Do Animals Have Rights? Tom L. Beauchamp Online publication date: 08 January 2010 To cite this Article Beauchamp, Tom L.(1997) 'Opposing Views on Animal Experimentation: Do Animals Have Rights?', Ethics & Behavior, 7: 2, 113 — 121 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1207/s15327019eb0702_3 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327019eb0702_3 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. ETHICS & BEHAVIOR, 7(2), 113-121 Copyright O 1997, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Opposing Views on Animal Experimentation: Do Animals Have Rights? Tom L. Beauchamp Philosophy Department Georgetown University Animals have moral standing; that is, they have properties (including the ability to feel pain) that qualify them for the protections of morality. It follows from this that humans have moral obligations toward animals, and because rights are logically correlative to obligations, animals have rights. Key words: animal experimentation, animal rights, moral standing The belief is almost universal that scientific protocols should be assessed differently if research subjects are human rather than animal. But why and in what ways should the two classes of subjects be assessed differently, if they should? If human subjects had the properties that justify our using animal subjects, would we be justified in treating human subjects exactly as we treat animal subjects? Answers to these questions turn on whether animals have moral standing, and Downloaded By: [Vienna University Library] At: 19:29 25 February 2011 if so, whether rights follow from their standing. In this issue Raymond Frey and Carl Cohen deny that animals have rights, although they do not claim that animals are altogether without standing. By contrast, I argue that the moral standing of animals grounds their rights. After a schematic presentation of the reasons for holding this position, I offer a few criticisms of the positions expressed by Cohen and Frey . Requests for reprints should be sent to Tom L. Beauchamp, The Joseph and Rose Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20057. 1 14 BEAUCHAMP THE MORAL STANDING OF ANIMALS To attribute moral standing to a creature is to say that it has properties that qualify it for the protections of morality. The term standing implies a grading concept that separates beings whose interests we morally must consider from beings whose interests count for less. The mainstream approach to moral standing has been to inquire whether an entity is the kind of entity to whom moral categories apply. The more an animal can be shown to have properties that make it like an intact adult human being, person, or autonomous agent, the more the animal is elevated on the grading scale of standing and the more it is protected by rights. The literature on this subject dominantly suggests that animals have few such properties and, therefore, have a minimal moral standing, if any. Cohen's position is representative of this outlook, which is currently the received view in the sciences and probably in the ethics literature as well. The view is typically that animals are neither persons nor autonomous agents, so they fail to qualify for rights or any significant moral protections beyond protection against interventions that produce severe and enduring pain. However, some writers turn this argument in the other direction. They believe that at least some animals do have the properties to qualify as persons and therefore qualify for moral protections, just as all persons do. For example, Cavalieri and Singer (1986), editors of The Great Ape Project, argued that the great apes are persons, just as humans are apes. It is no accident that the central theme of their project is a declaration of the personhood of apes. THE MODEL OF COGNITIVE PROPERTIES The implicit contrast between human life and animal life in this literature is at the center of the problem of animal rights and human obligations to animals. Those Downloaded By: [Vienna University Library] At: 19:29 25 February 2011 who believe animals have reduced moral standing believe that special human properties distinguish us in the relevant ways from animals. The idea is that humans have cognitive capacities to be self-determining in ways animals cannot. These properties are invoked to justify the ways in which we traditionally allow human interests to rank higher and count for more. Accordingly, the search has been for the precise set of properties that give humans the protections of morality, and whose absence denies the same protections to animals. About 2 decades ago, a group of philosophers adduced schematic arguments along the following lines: One is a person if and only if one possesses certain cognitive properties, and the possession of precisely these properties gives an entity moral standing. As a corollary, anything lacking these properties lacks moral standing, and so lacks rights. The main appeal in this argument is to our moral intuitions that there is something special about persons in the way pelicans, baboons, and dogs, say, are not special. Given the choice of preventing the death OPPOSING VIEWS ON ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION 1 15 of a human or a pelican, we would choose the human; and this does not seem morally arbitrary because pelicans are distinguished from persons by cognitive differences between them of the utmost moral importance. Cognitive criteria such as the following have been put forward as the relevant conditions for status as a person: 1. Capacity for self-consciousness. 2. Capacity for purposive action. 3. Capacity to communicate in a language. 4. Capacity to make moral judgments. 5. Rationality. Although the received view is that one or more of these criteria is a necessary condition of personhood, it is questionable whether any list approximating these criteria can resolve issues of standing. The most direct threat to this analysis is that some animals satisfy one or more of the central items on the list. That is, if animals have a mental life that makes them self-conscious, purposive, communicative, rational, and so forth-as Darwin thought and as various scientists and philosophers have been maintaining in recent years--on a cognitivist theory we would be compelled to change our treatment of animals. I believe that cognitive criteria favor rather than disfavor standing and rights for animals, but I here attempt little more than a critique of the cognitivist model-es- pecially the idea that there is something very special about us that cannot be duplicated in the animal world. I deny that there are the kind of morally significant cognitive differences between healthy adult humans and animals in the way proposed in cognitivist theories, even if there are psychologically significant cognitive differences. I also deny that the crucial concepts of self-consciousness and autonomy-as presented in cognitivist theories-exclude animals. Once these concepts are properly explicated, it can be plausibly maintained that animals have such capacities. Downloaded By: [Vienna University Library] At: 19:29 25 February 2011 The central question about cognitive capacities and moral standing, in my judgment, is whether animals act autonomously.The two most important conditions of autonomous action are understanding and intention. If animals both understand and intend, are not these significant properties? Are they not morally significant properties on the cognitivist model, not merely cognitively significant properties? Might they not, therefore, be the kind of properties we should look to in conferring moral standing? But do animals understand and intend?' Perhaps more important, are their forms of understanding and intention accompanied by thought? Many close observers of animal behavior now agree that animals do, to some degree, have significant 'several related problems not explored here were examined by Rollin (1989) and Radner and Radner (1989). 1 16 BEAUCHAMP abilities to intend, understand, and communicate. Many forms of behavior are also intentional, and many forms of goal-directed behavior, such as defending a nest, often appear to be innovative and unprecedented. The novelty under discussion by many ethologists and psychologists is hard to understand without
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Haben Tiere Rechte? Eine Untersuchung Der Argumente Pro Und Contra Unter Besonderer Berücksichtigung Der Theorie Von Tom Regan
    Haben Tiere Rechte? Eine Untersuchung der Argumente pro und contra unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Theorie von Tom Regan Dissertation zur Erlangung des philosophischen Doktorgrades an der Philosophischen Fakultät der Georg-August-Universität Göttingen vorgelegt von Wen-Yen Huang aus Chia-Yih, Taiwan Göttingen 2013 Erster Gutachter: Prof. Dr. Ulrich Majer Zweiter Gutachter: Prof. Dr. Holmer Steinfath Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 11.12.2013 Inhaltsverzeichnis 1. Einleitung ………………………………………………………………………… 1 2. Betrachtung der Begriffe des Tiers und der Tierrechte ...…………………….. 2 2.1 Der Begriff des Tiers …………………………………………………….. 2 2.2 Der Begriff der Tierrechte ……………………………………………….. 5 3. Kurzer Abriss der Entwicklung der philosophischen Gedanken über Tiere in den westlichen Ländern …………………………………………………………... 24 4. Eine Auseinandersetzung mit vier Positionen, die Tieren keine Rechte zuschreiben ………………………………………………………………………... 33 4.1 Die Lehre der Tierautomaten von Descartes …………………………… 34 4.2 Eine kritische Auseinandersetzung mit der Lehre der Tierautomaten von Descartes ……………………………………………………………….. 38 4.3 Kants Lehre der indirekten Pflichten gegenüber Tieren ………………... 53 4.4 Eine kritische Auseinandersetzung mit der Lehre der indirekten Pflichten von Kant ……………………………………………………………….. 60 4.5 Der Kontraktualismus von John Rawls ………………………………… 70 4.6 Eine kritische Auseinandersetzung mit dem Kontraktualismus von Rawls ………………………………………………………………………….. 75 4.6.1 Eine Kritik an dem Kontraktualismus von Rawls ……………. 75 4.6.2 Die Idee der Gerechtigkeit bei Aristoteles ……………………. 95 4.7 Der Präferenz-Utilitarismus von Peter Singer ………………………… 103 4.8 Eine kritische Auseinandersetzung mit dem Präferenz-Utilitarismus von Singer …………………………………………………………………. 109 5. Über die Theorie der Tierrechte von Tom Regan …………………………... 116 5.1 Die Theorie der Tierrechte von Regan ……………………………...… 116 5.2 Eine Kritik an der Theorie der Tierrechte von Regan ……….……...… 129 6. Über die Begründung der Tierrechte ……………………………………..….
    [Show full text]
  • Ethical Meat Eating
    Ethical Meat Eating A Research on the Philosophy of Eating Animals Author: Myrthe Romeijn First Reader: Dr. N. Vrousalis Master Thesis Student Number: S1022814 Second Reader: Dr. M.A. de Geus Date: June 8th 2015 Thesis Seminar: The Philosophy of Inequality Abstract This thesis examines if it is morally justifiable to eat animals. Indirect animal theories and moral equality theories are both found to be inadequate in answering this question, and therefore, a direct animal rights, but unequal, theory is supported. Animals can have rights because they have certain interests that need protection. My thesis is that animals have the right not to suffer but not the rights of life and liberty. Animals that are sentient have an interest not to suffer, but they lack the capacities to have interests in life and liberty. It is, therefore, morally justifiable to eat animals as long as this is done ethically. Raising animals for consumption must not violate the animal’s right to live without suffering. The contemporary way of farming animals must drastically change to satisfy this right. 2 Acknowledgements I would like to shortly express my thanks to the people who made the writing of this thesis possible. I am very grateful to my thesis supervisors, Dr. Nicolas Vrousalis and Dr. Marius de Geus for all their recommendations and their availability to review and comment on this thesis. Their insights were very helpful and always welcome to improve my work. I would also like to thank all the people who were willing to proofread my thesis and who gave me useful feedback.
    [Show full text]
  • Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare
    ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ANIMAL RIGHTS AND ANIMAL WELFARE Marc Bekoff Editor Greenwood Press Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ANIMAL RIGHTS AND ANIMAL WELFARE Edited by Marc Bekoff with Carron A. Meaney Foreword by Jane Goodall Greenwood Press Westport, Connecticut Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Encyclopedia of animal rights and animal welfare / edited by Marc Bekoff with Carron A. Meaney ; foreword by Jane Goodall. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0–313–29977–3 (alk. paper) 1. Animal rights—Encyclopedias. 2. Animal welfare— Encyclopedias. I. Bekoff, Marc. II. Meaney, Carron A., 1950– . HV4708.E53 1998 179'.3—dc21 97–35098 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data is available. Copyright ᭧ 1998 by Marc Bekoff and Carron A. Meaney All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be reproduced, by any process or technique, without the express written consent of the publisher. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 97–35098 ISBN: 0–313–29977–3 First published in 1998 Greenwood Press, 88 Post Road West, Westport, CT 06881 An imprint of Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc. Printed in the United States of America TM The paper used in this book complies with the Permanent Paper Standard issued by the National Information Standards Organization (Z39.48–1984). 10987654321 Cover Acknowledgments: Photo of chickens courtesy of Joy Mench. Photo of Macaca experimentalis courtesy of Viktor Reinhardt. Photo of Lyndon B. Johnson courtesy of the Lyndon Baines Johnson Presidential Library Archives. Contents Foreword by Jane Goodall vii Preface xi Introduction xiii Chronology xvii The Encyclopedia 1 Appendix: Resources on Animal Welfare and Humane Education 383 Sources 407 Index 415 About the Editors and Contributors 437 Foreword It is an honor for me to contribute a foreword to this unique, informative, and exciting volume.
    [Show full text]
  • C U R R I C U L U M V I T a E Tom L. Beauchamp Professor of Philosophy, Philosophy Department, and Senior Research Scholar At
    C U R R I C U L U M V I T A E Tom L. Beauchamp Professor of Philosophy, Philosophy Department, and Senior Research Scholar at the Kennedy Institute of Ethics Georgetown University Washington, D.C. 20057 Home Mailing Address: 3173 Porter St NW; Washington, DC 20008 DEGREES AND APPOINTMENTS: 1963 - B.A., M.A. Southern Methodist University 1966 - B.D., Yale University 1970 - Ph.D., The Johns Hopkins University (Philosophy) 1970 - Assistant Professor, Georgetown University 1975 - Associate Professor, Georgetown University 1979 - Professor, Georgetown University CURRENT PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS: General Editor, with David Fate Norton and M. A. Stewart The Critical Edition of the Works of David Hume, Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press. Editorial Board Member Journal of Medicine and Philosophy Hume Studies 2 PUBLICATIONS: Books Authored Principles of Biomedical Ethics (Oxford University Press, 1979; sixth Edition 2009), coauthor: James F. Childress. Japanese translation (Tokyo, 1994, of the third edition; Tokyo, 2009, of the fifth edition); Polish translation (Ksiaska i Wiedza, 1998); Spanish translation (Masson, 1999); Portuguese translation (Sao Paulo, 2002); French Edition (Paris 2008); German translation in preparation at Jena University. Standing on Principles (Oxford University Press, 2010). Hume and the Problem of Causation (Oxford University Press, 1981), coauthor: Alexander Rosenberg. Philosophical Ethics (McGraw-Hill, 1982; Second Edition, 1991; Third Edition, 2001). Medical Ethics (Prentice-Hall, 1984), coauthor: Laurence McCullough. Spanish translation (Barcelona, 1987); Japanese Translation (MDP, J. Munkata, 1992). A History and Theory of Informed Consent (Oxford University Press, 1986), coauthor: Ruth R. Faden. Japanese translation (Misuzu Shobo, 1992). The Virtuous Journalist (Oxford University Press, 1987), coauthor: Stephen Klaidman.
    [Show full text]
  • Growing in Goodness Towards a Symbiotic Ethics
    1 Growing in Goodness Towards a Symbiotic Ethics Submitted by Alexander Badman-King, to the University of Exeter as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in philosophy; 12/2016 This thesis is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without prop- er acknowledgement. I certify that all material in this thesis which is not my own work has been iden- tified and that no material has previously been submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any other University. (Signature) Alexander Badman-King 1 2 ABSTRACT At its core, this thesis represents an attempt to outline and clarify a concept of ‘wis- dom’. Building upon a fairly well established tradition of ‘philosophy as a way of life’ the discussion sets out an understanding of a model of philosophy which sets a un- ion of the virtues as its ultimate goal (finding models of non-ethical and primarily ac- ademic philosophy to be lacking). Aristotle’s practical wisdom and Plato’s humble, human wisdom are found to be complimentary in certain key respects and useful (in conjunction) in describing the nature of this ‘wisdom’ as a state of moral expertise and broad insight (an understanding of, and action according to, that which is most important). An account is given of the kind of moderate moral realism which is able to account for the ‘moral facts’ which are necessary to render this sort of moral knowledge viable. This moderate realism is founded upon a similarly moderate or compromising epistemology which will itself constitute a recurring theme of this ‘wis- dom’.
    [Show full text]
  • Le Concept D'autonomie S'applique-T-Il Aux Animaux ?
    Université de Montréal Le concept d’autonomie s’applique-t-il aux animaux ? par Frédéric Côté-Boudreau Département de philosophie Faculté des arts et des sciences Mémoire présenté à la Faculté des études supérieures en vue de l’obtention du grade de Maître ès Arts (M.A.) en philosophie Août 2013 © Frédéric Côté-Boudreau, 2013 Résumé Dans ce mémoire, je cherche à déterminer pourquoi les animaux non humains ne sont pas considérés comme étant autonomes dans les théories libérales contemporaines. Pour ce faire, j’analyse deux conceptions traditionnelles de l’autonomie, soit l’autonomie en tant qu’agentivité morale et l’autonomie hiérarchique (en tant que capacité à agir selon ses désirs de second ordre), et je soutiens que ces deux conceptions ne réussissent pas à bien justifier le respect des choix personnels même chez les agents humains. J’avance que ces deux conceptions de l’autonomie mènent à des conclusions perfectionnistes et paternalistes à certains égards, ce qui est pourtant contraire à leur fonction. J’analyse ensuite quelques versions alternatives de l’autonomie qui ne reposent pas sur la possession de facultés morales ou rationnelles, avant de proposer une nouvelle conception de l’autonomie qui pourrait répondre aux problèmes soulevés et potentiellement reconnaître l’autonomie des animaux non humains. Mots-clés : autonomie ; éthique animale ; libéralisme ; perfectionnisme ; paternalisme ; spécisme ; bien-être ; authenticité ; liberté ; déficience intellectuelle. i Abstract In this M.A. research, I try to understand why nonhuman animals are not considered autonomous in the contemporary liberal theories. To do this, I analyze two main conceptions of autonomy, autonomy as moral agency and hierarchical autonomy (as the capacity to act according to second-order desires), and I argue that these conceptions both fail to justify the respect of personal choices even for human agents.
    [Show full text]
  • Animals in Anglo-American Philosophy - Clare Palmer
    H-Animal Animals in Anglo-American Philosophy - Clare Palmer Page published by Kolt Ewing on Thursday, June 19, 2014 Animals in Anglo-American Philosophy Clare Palmer Philosophy and Environmental Studies Washington University St. Louis , Missouri ([email protected]) Philosophers, both ancient and modern, have had much to say about animals. This review will, therefore, of necessity, be extremely selective. First, I’ll consider only recent material from, roughly, the early 1970s to 2005. Second, I’ll confine the discussion to Anglo-American, rather than Continental philosophy. Third, I’ll consider only two areas of philosophy: philosophy of mind and ethics. I’ll focus on animal ethics. But since most ethical arguments about animals depend on some view of what animals are like, I’ll begin by looking at some work on animal minds. Investigation of animal minds is complex and multi-disciplinary, the territory of psychology, cognitive ethology, and biology as well as philosophy. Answering central questions such as "Do animals feel pain? Are animals conscious? Can animals think, even if they are non-linguistic beings? Is there some sense in which we can regard animals as rational?" requires empirical as well as philosophical work. Even asking questions of this kind is problematic. These questions imply that that there is a single category "animal," rather than many individual animals, of many species, at different stages of maturity. Further, they suggest that there is some agreed upon meaning for terms such as "pain," "consciousness," or "rationality" although much of the philosophical argument has, in fact, turned on what these very terms should be taken to mean.
    [Show full text]
  • David Degrazia, Phd Curriculum Vitae
    1 David Dion DeGrazia (born: July 20, 1962) Senior Research Fellow Department of Bioethics National Institutes of Health Building 10, Room 1C-118 Bethesda, MD 20814 [email protected] & Elton Professor of Philosophy George Washington University Rome Hall 566 Washington, DC 20052 [email protected] ACADEMIC DEGREES Ph.D. in Philosophy, 1989, Georgetown University (4.0 GPA); comprehensive exams in ethical theory, bioethics, and epistemology (all passed with distinction); dissertation: Interests, Intuition, and Moral Status, supervised by Tom Beauchamp M.Stud. in Philosophy, 1987, Oxford University; moral philosophy with James Griffin, Wittgenstein with David Pears B.A. with a major in Philosophy, 1983, University of Chicago (Phi Beta Kappa); thesis advisor: A.W.H. Adkins; freshman and sophomore years at the University of Maryland, College Park (Honors Program) AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION AREAS OF COMPETENCE Ethical Theory Philosophy of Mind & Cognitive Sciences Biomedical Ethics Wittgenstein Personal Identity Theory History of Analytic Philosophy Epistemology History of Modern Philosophy PUBLICATIONS Books • A Theory of Bioethics, with Joseph Millum (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming 2021) • Principles of Animal Research Ethics, with Tom Beauchamp (New York: Oxford University Press, 2020) • Debating Gun Control: How Much Regulation Do We Need? with Lester Hunt (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016) • Creation Ethics: Reproduction, Genetics, and Quality of Life (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012; paperback edition, 2014)
    [Show full text]
  • GARY VARNER Department of Philosophy
    GARY VARNER Updated August 2019 Department of Philosophy (979) 845-8499 (office) 312 YMCA Building (979) 846-0250 (cell) Texas A&M University [email protected] College Station, TX 77843-4237 http://people.tamu.edu/~g-varner/ ACADEMIC EMPLOYMENT 1990-present Department of Philosophy, Texas A&M University (Professor 2010-present, Associate Professor 1996-2010, Assistant Professor 1991-1996, Director of Graduate Studies 2004-2010, Head 2011-2014) spring 2001 Visiting Associate Professor of Philosophy, Iowa State University 1988-1990 Visiting Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Washington University in St. Louis summer 1988 Visiting Assistant Professor in the Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin–Madison 1987-1988 Lecturer in Philosophy, University of Wisconsin–Stevens Point EDUCATION • Ph.D. (philosophy) University of Wisconsin–Madison, May 1988 • M.A. (philosophy) University of Georgia, May 1983 • B.A. (philosophy) Arizona State University, May 1980 AREAS OF RESEARCH SPECIALIZATION • Hare’s two-level (“Kantian”) utilitarianism • animal welfare and animal rights philosophies (especially how empirical science informs their application) • environmental ethics • philosophical issues in environmental law AREAS OF TEACHING COMPETENCE • ethical theory • applied ethics/contemporary moral issues • environmental ethics • animal ethics • agricultural ethics • introductory logic Gary Varner (updated August 2019) page 2 WORK IN PROGRESS Sustaining Animals: Envisioning Humane, Sustainable Communities is under contract with Oxford University Press. This will be a sequel to my 2012 book on two-level, Harean utilitarianism. PUBLICATIONS Books Defending Biodiversity: Environmental Science and Ethics, with Jonathan Newman and Stefan Linquist (Cambridge University Press, 2017). Personhood, Ethics, and Animal Cognition: Situating Animals in the Two-Level Utilitarianism of R.M.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 8, No. 1, Spring 1997 General Announcements
    Volume 8, No. 1, Spring 1997 General Announcements Greening the College Curriculum A Guide to Environmental Teaching in the Liberal Arts, edited by Jonathan Collett and Stephen Karakashian (Washington, DC Island Press, 1996) has been selling quite well (2500 copies in the first six months). The book was chosen by Choice as one of the outstanding academic books of 1996. Detail on the contents in Newsletter vol. 6, no. 3, or in the ISEE Master Bibliography, on website or disk. The Department of Philosophy at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, maintains an environmental ethics website at: http://www.phi.gu.se/environment.html There is an introduction to environmental philosophy amd various other sources. The material is in English as well as in Swedish. Seminar on Environmental Values and the Environmental Ethics and Public Policy Program, at Harvard University, maintain an environmental website at: http://divweb.harvard.edu/csvpl/ee/ http://divweb.harvard.edu/csvpl/ee/bib/ http://divweb.harvard.edu/csvpl/ee/bib/about.htm (Note that there is no "www" in these addresses; this is the formal style of address.) There are subject bibliographies in environmental ethics, such as: a reference list of course sources on environmental ethics; a bibliography on the environmental crisis and Western Civilization (featuring the Lynn White controversy); a bibliography on the ethics of biological invasion, the ecology and ethics of colonialism; and a bibliography on the ethics of altruism, biological and social aspects of selfless behavior. A contact is Timothy C. Weiskel. Email: [email protected] The Department of Philosophy, Colorado State University, is pleased to announce the appointment of Omar Dahbour to a position in international ethics.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethical Issues in the Use of Animals in Biomedical and Psychopharmocological Research
    WellBeing International WBI Studies Repository 12-2003 Ethical Issues in the Use of Animals in Biomedical and Psychopharmocological Research John P. Gluck University of New Mexico Jordan Bell University of New Mexico Follow this and additional works at: https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/acwp_arte Part of the Animal Experimentation and Research Commons, Animal Studies Commons, and the Other Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Gluck, J. P., & Bell, J. (2003). Ethical issues in the use of animals in biomedical and psychopharmocological research. Psychopharmacology, 171(1), 6-12. This material is brought to you for free and open access by WellBeing International. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator of the WBI Studies Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Ethical Issues in the Use of Animals in Biomedical and Psychopharmocological Research John P. Gluck1,2 and Jordan Bell1 1 University of New Mexico 2 Georgetown University KEYWORDS ethics, psychopharmacology, animal research, animal models, validity, moral standing ABSTRACT Rationale: The ethical debate concerning the use of animals in biomedical and pharmacological research continues to be replete with misunderstandings about whether animals have moral standing. Objectives: This article briefly reviews the central ethical positions and their relationship to the basic parameters of research regulation from an international perspective. The issues associated with the validation of animal models will then be discussed. Finally, suggestions for empirical ethics research will be presented. Methods: Recent literature reviews were accessed and analyzed. Results: This review summarizes the pertinent ethical and research literature. Conclusions: In summary, regardless of the ethical perspective one favors, there is strong agreement that animals matter morally and that at a minimum their welfare must be considered.
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Rights – a Philosophical Inquiry
    Ethics in Progress (ISSN 2084-9257). Vol. 5 (2014). No. 1. 157-160. doi:10.14746/eip.2014.1.9 Animal rights – a philosophical inquiry Marta Szopka (Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland) Review of: Dorota Probucka (2013). Filozoficzne podstawy idei praw zwierząt [Philosophical foundations of the animal rights concept], pp. 352, Cracow: Universitas When discussing the issue of animal rights, a burdening lack of comprehensive textbooks becomes quickly visible. A comprehensive introduction to both the historical development of different conceptions of animal rights, as well as their philosophical and ethical backgrounds would be a highly valuable addition to the persisting discussion. That is the reason why the book by Dorota Probucka, entitled Philosophical foundations of the animal rights concept, deserves particular attention of both students and researchers, who place their interest in discussing animal rights. In her monographic work, Dorota Probucka introduces in the first chapter the notion of animal rights through a historical analysis of the development of the discussed issue, emphasizing the link between the anti- positivist stand in modern philosophy of law and the notion of animal rights. As the authoress points out: “Basic rights theory is one of the modern, anti- positivist schools of philosophy of law, which is widely evoked by the proponents of animal rights” (Probucka 2013, 40). As it is pointed out, the sympathy, expressed by the supporters of animal rights towards the basic rights theory, is due to the affirmation of existence of certain, basic, rights, which may be both human, as well as non-human. Thus, such an empowering and expanding notion grants the possibility to talk not only of animal rights as a human obligation towards non-human animals, but as an elementary aspect of a wider theory of justice.
    [Show full text]