DOCSLIB.ORG

Animals' Rights and Wrongs Do About Genuine Conflicts of Interest Like Rats Biting Slum Children?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Animals' Rights and Wrongs Do About Genuine Conflicts of Interest Like Rats Biting Slum Children? .:..::..:..:..:NATURE::=....:v..:::.:::..::.oL302::._::_21=APRIL::....:.:..::1983 ___ CQRRESPQNDENCE------64' 1 been quoted as saying : "What are we to Animals' rights and wrongs do about genuine conflicts of interest like rats biting slum children? ... the essential SIR - The case for animal rights is really from any beliefs, it is a species-specific point is just that we do see this as a conflict much simpler than your anonymous article characteristic of human suffering that it of interests, that we recognize that rats (Nature 24 March, p.287) would suggest. is modified by beliefs concerning its have interests too." Whilst animals differ from us in many aetiology. A simple example of this is A candidate for the Sierra Club Board of ways, such as intelligence, strengt.h, the exclusively human phenomenon of Directors has pushed it a little further in his language and appearance, these dif­ placebos. A more complex example is the election statement by saying" All life forms ferences are entirely arbitrary and can oc­ different affective reactions people have to from blue whales to bacteria have an equal cur within our own species. Animals are similar injuries when they believe they are right to exist". This raises the question of like us in one crucial respect- they too can accidents compared with when they believe the abrogation of the rights of intestinal experience pain, fear and stress, and on they are the products of intention. People coliforms by the end result of peristalsis. that basis the National Anti-Vivisection also suffer differently a similar physical in­ Also, it is doubtful whether pathogenic Society believes they should receive the jury according to whether they have con­ microorganisms perceive the rights of their same respect and consideration we would sented for example to medical treatment or hosts. It brings us back to the darwinian expect for each other. The suffering which have it done against their will. There is no notion of the struggle for existence, in is so often inseparable from animal experi­ comparable sentience in nonhumans. The which our own species has been perhaps mentation, and the intensive forms of involvement of beliefs is central to human over-successful, but not sufficiently suc­ animal husbandry, hardly approach this experience and our sentient nature. It not cessful as to stop competing with other ideal. only underlies our capacity to concep­ biota. Obviously the inflicting of needless It is only the enormous implications of tualize moral frameworks but the human pain is to be avoided. such an ethical revolution that complicate need for them. THOMAS H. JUKES the issue. In the same way, logical (2) His attack on "speciesism" using Department of Biophysics arguments for the abolition of slavery were analogies that animal experience has with and Medical Physics, clouded by implications of economic col­ that of retarded and infant humans ignores University of California, Berkeley, USA lapse. the importance of generalizing human In the case of animal experiments, rights to all classes of human experience. If 1. Parity Foundation Newsmagazine Vol. 1,7 (1981). numerous powerful influences work to certain groups of humans were exempted keep the status quo. The introduction of there could be the risk that by accident or potentially highly profitable products is design - witness present-day psychiatric legally dependent on animal tests whilst practice in the Soviet Union - fully sen­ Toxin gene cloning of tient humans would be denied their rights scientists will be averse to losing one SIR - In considering the applicability of their traditional "research tools". Nor by being misclassified. cloned toxin genes to biological warfare, should we forget the laboratory animal (3) For most of this century anti­ James Larrick's letter (and indeed, the title breeders and associated industries. vivisectionists have concluded, since we your editors attached to it, "Beware cloned With such powerful vested interests cannot predict the beneficial consequences toxins") suggests that cloned toxins are there has been understandable, though of pure research using vivisection, that no more dangerous than these toxins lamentable, lack of government sympathy. moral obligation to human welfare is ef­ produced in their natural hosts (Nature 24 But recent moves to link votes with animal fected by restricting it in the interests of February, p.651). This is highly protection promise to make this an impor­ animal welfare. However, though on any improbable. In fact, it is likely that these tant political issue and it may well be that particular occasion of its being asserted this cloned toxins will be less dangerous (in governments will be finally persuaded to is no doubt true, retrospectively all such Escherichia coli K-12, at least) because of take steps towards reform. To begin with claims until now have been shown to be the differences in cellular compartmental­ this could mean eliminating the LD50 test, false by the sequential development of ization and post-translational processing restricting funds for the use of animals in medical science. I cannot invalidate Peter which must accompany the secretion of psychological and behavioural research, Singer's claims that in restricting vivisec­ these toxic proteins from their natural and real government support for the tion he is not restricting future human hosts. development of alternative methodologies. welfare, but it is clear that all previous The example cited by Mr Larrick, In the case of toxicity testing, at least, the assumptions to this effect have been shown diphtheria toxin, illustrates this point well. to be erroneous and present-day claims need for humane and more reliable tests Diphtheria toxin produced by certain has long been apparent. might be equally so. It is reasonable to be (widely available) strains of Yet how much better it would be for believe that restricting research in the name Corynebacterium diphtheriae may government and scientists to take the in­ of animal rights is to act contrary to our produce and secrete up to 500 xg per itiative and respond positively to moral obligations to future generations not now millilitre of diphtheria toxin (this is growing public concern, instead of acting knowingly to restrict the opportunities they equivalent to about 70,000 human LD oS defensively as your article rather negatively might have to alleviate or prevent human 5 per litre). One hardly needs a recombinant suggests. The question of animal rights can suffering. To have acted on animal rights in E. coli strain to manufacture this toxin. In be ignored. the past would have denied many patients no longer addition, the highly toxinogenic strains of RollEIH SHARPE today the care that medical progress has C. diphtheriae mentioned above are National Anti-Vivisection Society, produced. Can it be right to deny the future essentially avirulent due to their inability to improvement in treatment efficacy conse­ London WJ, UK colonize the throat, pointing to the multi­ SIR - Your News and Views comment, quent to implementing the unproven con­ factorial requirements of virulence. "Do laboratory animals have rights?" cept of animal rights? There is a great need for public aware­ (Nature 24 March, p.287) fails to point out JOHN R. SKOYLI'S ness about the potential dangers and that Professor Peter Singer's notions of LondonNW3, UK abuses of chemical and biological warfare. animal rights, though popular, have The particular letter you chose to print, dubious foundations. SIR - The cacophonous neologism however, did little to advance this ( 1) Peter Singer ignores the basic "speciesism" is used (Nature 24 March, objective. distinctiveness of the human experience of p.287) in a discussion of animal experimen­ KEN COLEMAN pain that underlies morality. While tation, quoting Professor Peter Singer. Harvard Medical School, nonhumans experience pain in isolation Singer's dicta extend beyond this; he has Boston, Massachusetts, USA © 1983 Nature Publishing Group.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ethics, Agency & Love
    Ethics, Agency & Love for Bryn Browne Department of Philosophy, University of Wales Lampeter Speciesism - Arguments for Whom? Camilla Kronqvist Please do not quote without permission! Since the publication of Animal Liberation by Peter Singer in 1975 there has been an upshot of literature concerned with the moral standing of animals and our attitudes and reactions towards them. The starting point for most of these discussions can mainly be found in the notion of speciesism, a term that originally was introduced by Richard Ryder but that has become more widely spread with the writings of Peter Singer. It is also Singer that I am discussing in this essay although many other philosophers have brought forward similar ideas. The idea that lies behind this notion is basically that we as human beings have prejudices in our attitudes towards animals and that we discriminate against them on grounds that are unacceptable in a society that stresses the importance of equality. The line that we draw between human beings, or members of the species Homo Sapiens as Singer prefers to put it, and animals is as arbitrary as the lines that previously have been drawn on the basis of sex or race. It is not a distinction that is based on any factual differences between the species but simply on the sense of superiority we seem to pride ourselves in with regard to our own species. Allowing the species of a being to be the determining factor for our ethical reactions towards is, according to the argument, as bad as letting sex or race play the same part.
    [Show full text]
  • The Scope of the Argument from Species Overlap
    bs_bs_banner Journal of Applied Philosophy,Vol.31, No. 2, 2014 doi: 10.1111/japp.12051 The Scope of the Argument from Species Overlap OSCAR HORTA ABSTRACT The argument from species overlap has been widely used in the literature on animal ethics and speciesism. However, there has been much confusion regarding what the argument proves and what it does not prove, and regarding the views it challenges.This article intends to clarify these confusions, and to show that the name most often used for this argument (‘the argument from marginal cases’) reflects and reinforces these misunderstandings.The article claims that the argument questions not only those defences of anthropocentrism that appeal to capacities believed to be typically human, but also those that appeal to special relations between humans. This means the scope of the argument is far wider than has been thought thus far. Finally, the article claims that, even if the argument cannot prove by itself that we should not disregard the interests of nonhuman animals, it provides us with strong reasons to do so, since the argument does prove that no defence of anthropocentrism appealing to non-definitional and testable criteria succeeds. 1. Introduction The argument from species overlap, which has also been called — misleadingly, I will argue — the argument from marginal cases, points out that the criteria that are com- monly used to deprive nonhuman animals of moral consideration fail to draw a line between human beings and other sentient animals, since there are also humans who fail to satisfy them.1 This argument has been widely used in the literature on animal ethics for two purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • Equality, Priority and Nonhuman Animals*
    Equality, Priority and Catia Faria Nonhuman Animals* Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Department of Law [email protected] http://upf.academia.edu/catiafaria Igualdad, prioridad y animales no humanos ABSTRACT: This paper assesses the implications of egali- RESUMEN: Este artículo analiza las implicaciones del iguali- tarianism and prioritarianism for the consideration of tarismo y del prioritarismo en lo que refiere a la conside- nonhuman animals. These implications have been often ración de los animales no humanos. Estas implicaciones overlooked. The paper argues that neither egalitarianism han sido comúnmente pasadas por alto. Este artículo de- nor prioritarianism can consistently deprive nonhuman fenderá que ni el igualitarismo ni el prioritarismo pueden animals of moral consideration. If you really are an egali- privar de forma consistente de consideración moral a los tarian (or a prioritarian) you are necessarily committed animales no humanos. Si realmente alguien es igualitaris- both to the rejection of speciesism and to assigning prior- ta (o prioritarista) ha de tener necesariamente una posi- ity to the interests of nonhuman animals, since they are ción de rechazo del especismo, y estar a favor de asignar the worst-off. From this, important practical consequen- prioridad a los intereses de los animales no humanos, ces follow for the improvement of the current situation of dado que estos son los que están peor. De aquí se siguen nonhuman animals. importantes consecuencias prácticas para la mejora de la situación actual de los animales no humanos. KEYWORDS: egalitarianism, prioritarianism, nonhuman ani- PALABRAS-CLAVE: igualitarismo, prioritarismo, animales no hu- mals, speciesism, equality manos, especismo, igualdad 1. Introduction It is commonly assumed that human beings should be given preferential moral consideration, if not absolute priority, over the members of other species.
    [Show full text]
  • Against Animal Liberation? Peter Singer and His Critics
    Against Animal Liberation? Peter Singer and His Critics Gonzalo Villanueva Sophia International Journal of Philosophy and Traditions ISSN 0038-1527 SOPHIA DOI 10.1007/s11841-017-0597-6 1 23 Your article is protected by copyright and all rights are held exclusively by Springer Science +Business Media Dordrecht. This e-offprint is for personal use only and shall not be self- archived in electronic repositories. If you wish to self-archive your article, please use the accepted manuscript version for posting on your own website. You may further deposit the accepted manuscript version in any repository, provided it is only made publicly available 12 months after official publication or later and provided acknowledgement is given to the original source of publication and a link is inserted to the published article on Springer's website. The link must be accompanied by the following text: "The final publication is available at link.springer.com”. 1 23 Author's personal copy SOPHIA DOI 10.1007/s11841-017-0597-6 Against Animal Liberation? Peter Singer and His Critics Gonzalo Villanueva1 # Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017 Keywords Animal ethics . Moral status of animals . Peter Singer. Animal liberation Peter Singer’s 1975 book Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals has been described as ‘the Bible’ of the modern animal movement.1 Singer’s unrhetorical and unemotional arguments radically departed from previous conceptions of animal ethics. He moved beyond the animal welfare tradition of ‘kindness’ and ‘compassion’ to articulate a non-anthropocentric utilitarian philosophy based on equal- ity and interests. After the publication of Animal Liberation, an ‘avalanche of animal rights literature’ appeared.2 A prolific amount of work focused on the moral status of animals, and the ‘animal question’ has been given serious consideration across a broad range of disciplines.
    [Show full text]
  • The Moral Standing of Animals: Towards a Psychology of Speciesism
    The Moral Standing of Animals: Towards a Psychology of Speciesism Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Lucius Caviola, Jim A.C. Everett, and Nadira S. Faber University of Oxford We introduce and investigate the philosophical concept of ‘speciesism’ — the assignment of different moral worth based on species membership — as a psychological construct. In five studies, using both general population samples online and student samples, we show that speciesism is a measurable, stable construct with high interpersonal differences, that goes along with a cluster of other forms of prejudice, and is able to predict real-world decision- making and behavior. In Study 1 we present the development and empirical validation of a theoretically driven Speciesism Scale, which captures individual differences in speciesist attitudes. In Study 2, we show high test-retest reliability of the scale over a period of four weeks, suggesting that speciesism is stable over time. In Study 3, we present positive correlations between speciesism and prejudicial attitudes such as racism, sexism, homophobia, along with ideological constructs associated with prejudice such as social dominance orientation, system justification, and right-wing authoritarianism. These results suggest that similar mechanisms might underlie both speciesism and other well-researched forms of prejudice. Finally, in Studies 4 and 5, we demonstrate that speciesism is able to predict prosociality towards animals (both in the context of charitable donations and time investment) and behavioral food choices above and beyond existing related constructs. Importantly, our studies show that people morally value individuals of certain species less than others even when beliefs about intelligence and sentience are accounted for.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethics and Animals Fall 2020
    Ethics and Animals Fall 2020 Description This course examines the morality of our treatment of nonhuman animals. We start with a survey of moral theory. Do animals have moral status? Do we have a right to harm or kill some animals in order to benefit or save others? We consider these questions from a variety of moral perspectives, including consequentialism, Kantian ethics, virtue ethics, and feminist ethics. We then apply these ideas to different kinds of animal use. For example, what is the morality of our treatment of animals in food, research, captivity, and the wild? Finally, we will explore ethical questions that arise for animal activists, including about what ends they should pursue, what means they should take towards those ends, and how they should relate to other social movements. General Information Time: T 5:00{7:30 ET Place: online Instructor: Name: Jeff Sebo Email: jeff[email protected] Office: online Office Hours: M 3-5pm ET 1 Readings The required books for this class are: Julia Driver, Ethics: The Fundamentals; Lori Gruen, Ethics and Animals; and Gary Francione & Robert Garner, The Animal Rights Debate. These books are available online, and the Gruen and Francione & Garner books are also available for free at the NYU library website. All readings not from the required books will be posted on the course website. Grading Your grades will be determined as follows: • Papers (75%): You will write three papers explaining and evaluating the ideas and arguments discussed in class. You will email this paper to [email protected]. For each paper, you can either create your own prompt (provided that you clear it with us in advance) or select from prompts that we create.
    [Show full text]
  • Vegetarianism and Virtue: Does Consequentialism Demand Too Little?
    WellBeing International WBI Studies Repository 1-2002 Vegetarianism and Virtue: Does Consequentialism Demand Too Little? Nathan Nobis University of Rochester Follow this and additional works at: https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/acwp_aafhh Part of the Animal Studies Commons, Other Anthropology Commons, and the Other Nutrition Commons Recommended Citation Nobis, N. (2002). Vegetarianism and Virtue: Does consequentialism Demand Too Little?. Social Theory & Practice, 28(1), 135-156. 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]. Vegetarianism and Virtue: Does Consequentialism Demand Too Little? Nathan Nobis Department of Philosophy, University of Rochester I will argue that each of us personally ought to be a vegetarian.1 Actually, the conclusion I will attempt to defend concerns more than one's eating habits in that I will argue that we should be "vegans." Not only should we not buy and eat meat, but we should also not purchase fur coats, stoles, and hats, or leather shoes, belts, jackets, purses and wallets, furniture, car interiors, and other traditionally animal-based products for which there are readily available plant-based or synthetic alternatives. (Usually these are cheaper and work just as well, or better, anyway.) I will argue that buying and eating most eggs and dairy products are immoral as well. (Since it's much easier
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Experimentation in India
    Animal Defenders International ● National Anti-Vivisection Society Animal Experimentation in India Unfettered science: How lack of accountability and control has led to animal abuse and poor science “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. Vivisection is the blackest of all the black crimes that man is at present committing against God and His fair creation. It ill becomes us to invoke in our daily prayers the blessings of God, the Compassionate, if we in turn will not practise elementary compassion towards our fellow creatures.” And, “I abhor vivisection with my whole soul. All the scientific discoveries stained with the innocent blood I count as of no consequence.” Mahatma Gandhi Thanks With thanks to Maneka Gandhi and the Committee for the Purpose of Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals (CPCSEA) of India for their report on the use of animals in laboratories, which has been used for this critique of the state of scientific and medical research in India. Animal Defenders International and the National Anti-Vivisection Society UK fully support and encourage the efforts of the members of India’s CPCSEA to enforce standards and controls over the use of animals in laboratories in India, and their recommendation that facilities and practices in India’s research laboratories be brought up to international standards of good laboratory practice, good animal welfare, and good science. Contributors Jan Creamer Tim Phillips Chris Brock Robert Martin ©2003 Animal Defenders International & National Anti-Vivisection Society ISBN: Animal Defenders International 261 Goldhawk Road, London W12 9PE, UK tel.
    [Show full text]
  • Laboratory Animals and the Art of Empathy D Thomas
    197 RESEARCH ETHICS J Med Ethics: first published as 10.1136/jme.2003.006387 on 30 March 2005. Downloaded from Laboratory animals and the art of empathy D Thomas ............................................................................................................................... J Med Ethics 2005;31:197–204. doi: 10.1136/jme.2003.006387 Consistency is the hallmark of a coherent ethical take a big leap of imagination to empathise with the victims of animal experiments as well. In philosophy. When considering the morality of particular short: if we would not want done to ourselves behaviour, one should look to identify comparable what we do to laboratory animals, we should not situations and test one’s approach to the former against do it to them. one’s approach to the latter. The obvious comparator for Animals suffer animal experiments is non-consensual experiments on Crucially for the debate about the morality of people. In both cases, suffering and perhaps death is animal experiments, non-human animals suffer knowingly caused to the victim, the intended beneficiary is just as human ones do. Descartes may have described animals as ‘‘these mechanical robots someone else, and the victim does not consent. Animals [who] could give such a realistic illusion of suffer just as people do. As we condemn non-consensual agony’’ (my emphasis) but no serious scientist experiments on people, we should, if we are to be today doubts that the manifestation of agony is real, not illusory. Indeed, the whole pro-vivisec- consistent, condemn non-consensual experiments on tion case is based on the premise that animals animals. The alleged differences between the two practices are sufficiently similar to us physiologically, and often put forward do not stand up to scrutiny.
    [Show full text]
  • And Transhumanism Robert Ranisch & Stefan Lorenz Sorgner Scientific and Technological Advances Have Questioned Predominant Doctrines Concerning the Human Condition
    Introducing Post- and Transhumanism Robert Ranisch & Stefan Lorenz Sorgner Scientific and technological advances have questioned predominant doctrines concerning the human condition. Transhumanism and posthumanism are among the most recent and prominent manifestations of this phenomenon. Debates on trans- and posthumanism have not only gained a considerable amount of aca- demic and popular attention recently, but have also created a widespread con- ceptual confusion. This is no surprise, considering their recent dates of origin, their conceptual similarities, and their engagements with similar questions, top- ics, and motifs. Furthermore, trans- as well as posthumanism frequently question their relationship to humanism1 and reconsider what it means to be human. In this regard both movements are streaming beyond humanism. What this means, however, is far from clear and shall be subject of discussion in this volume. In order to make sense of these two approaches and to investigate their inter- relationship, a clarification of these concepts is necessary. As a first approxima- tion, transhumanism can be seen as a stance that affirms the radical transfor- mation of human’s biological capacities and social conditions by means of tech- 1 We will not be able to address the complex histories and varieties of humanism in this chapter. Yet, the following must be noted: The word “humanism” (Humanismus) was coined in 1808 by the German theologian and philosopher Friedrich I. Niethammer in the context of educational curricula, as it is derived from the Latin word humanitas. This word has a variety of meaning but has strongly been identified with the Greek word paideia (παιδεία), e.g., i.) in Cicero’s De Oratore (I, 71) the meaning of the concept hu- manitas corresponds to that of the concept paideia; ii.) in the text Noctes Acticae (XIII, 17) by the Latin author Aulus Gellius, who lived in the 2nd century, an explicit identifi- cation of paideia and humanitas can be found.
    [Show full text]
  • Singer on Killing Animals
    OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Thu Jul 02 2015, NEWGEN 8 Singer on Killing Animals SHELLY KAGAN here are, I think, at least two questions that any adequate account of Tthe ethics of killing animals should try to answer. First of all, and most importantly, we’d like to know whether it is indeed wrong (other things being equal) to kill animals at all. Of course, killing may often involve pain, and most of us would agree that it is wrong (again, other things being equal) to cause an animal pain. But recognizing this fact doesn’t yet tell us whether there is anything wrong with killing the animal per se—that is to say, above and beyond the pain it might involve. Suppose that we are considering killing a given animal painlessly. Would that still be objection- able? If so, why? Second, assuming for the moment that it is, in fact, wrong to kill animals, is there something particularly wrong about killing people? That is to say, if we distinguish between being a person (being rational and self-conscious, aware of oneself as existing across time) and being what we might call a “mere” animal (sentient, but not a person), we might wonder whether it is somehow worse to kill a person than it is to kill an animal that is merely sentient. Most of us, I imagine, think that something like this is indeed the case.1 But it is not obvious whether this common view is justified, and even if it is, it is not obvious what makes the killing of the person worse.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case Against Animal Experiments
    The Case Against Animal Experiments Animal experiments are both unethical and unscientific. Animals in laboratories endure appalling suffering, such as being deliberately poisoned, brain-damaged and subjected to inescapable electric shocks. The pain and misery inflicted on the victims is enough, on its own, to make vivisection worthy of public condemnation. But animal “ “ experiments are also bad science, since the results they produce cannot be reliably translated to humans. They therefore offer little hope of advancing medical progress. The Case Against Animal Experiments outlines the suffering of animals used in research, before providing a clear, non-technical description of the scientific problems S E with vivisection. L I www.animalaid.org.uk C I N I M O D © How animals are used Contents Each year around four million How animals are used .......................... 1 animals are experimented on inside British laboratories. The suffering of animals in Dogs, cats, horses, monkeys, laboratories ........................................ 2 rats, rabbits and other animals Cruel experiments .................................... 2 are used, as well as hundreds A failing inspection regime ........................ 3 of thousands of genetically Secrecy and misinformation ...................... 4 modified mice. The most The GM mouse myth ................................ 4 common types of experiment The scientific case against either attempt to test how animal experiments .............................. 5 safe a substance is (toxicity Summary ...............................................
    [Show full text]